Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Internet resilience

"Brian Trammell (IETF)" <> Tue, 24 December 2019 14:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAB741200C1 for <>; Tue, 24 Dec 2019 06:17:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V0nLMBLrpVaC for <>; Tue, 24 Dec 2019 06:17:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 614E11200B7 for <>; Tue, 24 Dec 2019 06:17:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id xBOEHKGv016157 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 24 Dec 2019 15:17:20 +0100
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E537810542C8F; Tue, 24 Dec 2019 15:17:19 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: "Brian Trammell (IETF)" <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16G102)
In-Reply-To: <LO2P265MB05733E4BD5A72EDEF96D3DE2C2290@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 15:17:18 +0100
Cc: Vittorio Bertola <>, Stephen Farrell <>, "" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <LO2P265MB05733E4BD5A72EDEF96D3DE2C2290@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
To: Andrew Campling <>
X-Antivirus: Dr.Web (R) for Unix mail servers drweb plugin ver.
X-Antivirus-Code: 0x100000
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Internet resilience
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 14:17:32 -0000

fwiw I personally see “resilience” more or less as scoped in this program description as the projection of the wider centralization/consolidation issue into the space that the IAB is equipped to say something useful about. Of course, I helped write the description after grappling unsuccessfully with consolidation with my “architecture” hat on for quite some time, so I’m definitely biased to think that way.

Agreed that discussion and action on consolidation needs to cast a wider net, and is therefore perhaps not something an IAB program should take on. Consolidation is an economic externality in a great number of industries in the early 21st century, and far bigger than the Internet.

Cheers, and $preferred_holiday_greeting,


Sent from my iPhone

On 24 Dec 2019, at 12:24, Andrew Campling <> wrote:

>>> On 24 December 2019 09:11, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>>> Il 23/12/2019 20:51 Stephen Farrell <> ha scritto:
>>> Hiya,
>>> Just on this bit...
>>>> On 23/12/2019 14:45, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>>>> A question: given the insistence
>>> Insistence is a very odd term to use.
>> Apologies, this is not my native language. 
>>>> in the charter on lack of diversity
>>>> as a key threat to resilience, do I take it well that this programme 
>>>> is meant to subsume the past discussions on centralization and 
>>>> consolidation of the Internet?
>>> No. Are you possibly reading between the lines and seeing the shadow 
>>> of some sneaky scheme that's just not there? :-)
>> No, I actually thought it would be a good thing to generalise the discussions on centralization 
>> into a structured programme on the threats to the ability of the Internet to survive in the long 
>> term. Up to now, we seem to have an unstructured discussion every now and then, when 
>> something pops up and then dies, with no clear long term plan on how to address the issue. 
> Noting the above exchange, I wonder whether a wider discussion needs to take place about resilience and related topics like centralisation and consolidation.  To do this properly it really needs the involvement of a much more diverse set of stakeholders and really needs to address both policy and technical considerations as just doing the latter in isolation will not really get to the core issues.  I think that a debate led by a body like the IGF but with input when appropriate on technical considerations by the IAB/IETF would be a much more useful exercise than something focused purely within the IAB/IETF.  
> No doubt others will have their own views on this.
> Andrew  
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list