Re: [arch-d] centralization

Dear architecture-discuss,

To share what might be inspiring:

Centralization, Concentration and Consolidation

In 2019 ISOC Global Report, Andrew Sullivan the president mentioned about
concentration and consolidation --and supposedly centralization--  in
relation to the Internet Architecture:

"All of these patterns are observable on the Internet today. Each has the
potential to alter how the Internet works, and together they may represent
a challenge to the traditional Internet architecture. They may change what
sorts of development we should expect.

...

This Global Internet Report tells us that the Internet Society has a great
deal of work to do. We must understand what concentration and consolidation
on the Internet mean, both for its architecture and for the wider society
that depends on the Internet. We must understand what is really happening
to the Internet in order to ensure that we build the Internet for everyone".

Yet, precisely 5-6 years ago, there were such architectural concerns about
"All that is solid" --which we may eloborate as ones adaptable and
analogeous as it is about ones which are solid including their moments of
togetherness or consolidation:

"This symposium, the first event in the series 'All that is Solid...',
interrogates the motivations, instruments, influences, justifications,
effects and origins of contemporary design techniques". (2014)

Watch "Symposium on Architecture: "Design Techniques"" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/Zpk5s9di04o

"... the second event of the series 'All that is solid ...' interrogates
collectivity, authorship, effects and development of contemporary design
techniques". (2015)

Watch "Symposium on Architecture: "Design Techniques II," with..." on
YouTube
https://youtu.be/YJ499QtXT8w

Regard,
Guntur Wiseno Putra

Pada Senin, 15 Maret 2021, Dominique Lazanski <dml@lastpresslabel.com>
menulis:

> Just to say that I completely support Eliot’s suggestions here and though
> I’ve been thinking about the same points, he has articulated them much
> better than I could.
>
> I think this issue would attract more than interest and new people into
> the work which would be great. I, for one, am willing to do work and work
> collaboratively to put together meaningful outputs that reflect all sides
> of the debate.
>
> Dominique
>
> On 14 Mar 2021, at 11:45, Eliot Lear <lear=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> I think that’s the wrong conclusion to draw, especially given events of
> the last year.  In fact, I myself missed some pretty important work that
> came out on this topic, which I believe ISOC actually
> advertised/sponsored[1].  IMHO there are limited aspects of concentration
> that the IETF can take on, but the IAB would be quite remiss to not engage
>  in this sort of activity, given the risks to the Internet.
>
> What can the IAB do?  The problem here is that there is movable feast.  We
> can look through the prism and see cybersecurity risks, or we can see
> resiliency risks, and of course the two are related.
>
>
>    - The board can bring relevant people together like, Geer, Jardine,
>    Leverett, Radu and Hausding, along with software service providers to
>    discuss how to mitigate the risks they described.
>       - Beginning with a workshop
>       - With a potential program or IRTF effort
>    - The board can articulate design recommendations for the IETF in
>    terms of what can lead to more or less centralization.  As I mentioned, I
>    think some of Martin’s work on middle boxes is interesting in this regard,
>    but it’s not the only activity.  How does service orchestration and network
>    management play into all of this?
>    - In coordination with ISOC, the board could discuss concerns with
>    regulators where they see the need to do so.  This is intertwined, IMHO,
>    with the evolving nature of lawful intercept, and probably needs to be
>    handled with some circumspection.
>    - The board can engaged different internet user communities to discuss
>    the risk and what sorts of mitigations should be undertaken.  Do you know
>    that there are large classes of TCP/IP use that do not allow for DNS
>    because of resiliency concerns?  Is that a physical law or a design failure?
>
>
> There is no shortage of work to be done here.
>
> Eliot
>
> [1] https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rcyb20/5/1?nav=tocList
>
> On 12 Mar 2021, at 13:33, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
> wrote:
>
>
> Hiya,
>
> On 12/03/2021 11:44, Hutchison, David wrote:
>
> Of course, I agree resilience is an important topic to pursue -- and
> like Toerless I was disappointed to see the previous "lukewarm"
> response ...
>
> Yeah, me too. It was funny that we had a good discussion
> on this list around the end of 2019 but then once we
> started a new list [1] it totally died. My conclusion
> was that indicated that people were interested in chatting
> but not in doing actual work on this topic.
>
> S.
>
> [1] https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/chirp
> <OpenPGP_0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>
>
>