Re: [arch-d] ETSI launches new group on Non-IP Networking addressing 5G new services

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 02:08:28AM -0700, S Moonesamy wrote:
> > Indeed. It is almost puzzling to think that end-to-end
> > encryption at IP(sec) level was presumed to be a good
> > architectural choice. Besides the obvious beneeit of being
> > agnostic to transport protocol choices but then failing on
> > ever getting a host stack model that would allow applications
> > to leverage it easily. Of couse, luckily we have it (IPsec)
> > as there are a lot of other good use cases for it.
> > Maybe a bit too much of the "one size fits all" syndrom that
> > new technologies by sheer self interest always come to presume ?
> 
> IPv6 was promoted as "secure by default" as IPsec was part of it.  It took
> many years for the IETF to admit that the technology selected by its central
> planning department did not see widespread use.  It's a bit like "SEND".

Hahaha. Am i assuming correctly that "central planning department" is
intentionally written to sound dismissive, or am i just reading
that into your text ?

We do have an official IETF photographer. Why can't we have an official
IETF cartoonist ? I would love to see a rendering of the "central planning
department of the IETF". Also the whole discussion about IETF photography,
badges and datatracker mugshots  would take a real interesting turn if we 
changed over to cartoons.

Kidding aside: i think we need to be careful in not discouraging
innovation when it is ambitious. The sole reason why the IETF exists is to
create innovation that depends on multiple parties to become active.
And the primary place where IPsec IMHO failed to gain adoption is on
those parts IETF continues not to want to work in: host-stacks, APIs,
(policy) etc..

> Have you ever heard of FILTH [1]?

The reference seems to be more about depressing language barriers than
technical aspects. But sure, the London led collonialization of
the finance industry of this planet is coming to an end (sob ? hurray ? ;-)

> There are people who visit what is
> sometimes referred to as an undeveloped country.  Some of those people tout
> their affiliation with the IETF to convince entities in that country to
> deploy a technology on the premise that it is used in advanced countries.

I have only seen few bits and pieces about those IETF outreach programs,
but it was all from people i respect and activites i felt where useful,
so i have no example data points to be cynical about.

> The "one size fits all" rarely works.

In India, subsistence farmers get updates of different city market prices
realtime via SMS on their cell phones so they know where to sell their produce.
In Germany, Corona case tracking is delayed for days through a multi-stage
series or FAX between different bureaucracies that manually process and
propagate information.

Maybe IPv6 was specifically architected not to be too much better
than IPv4 to ensure that developing countries that can skip IPv4
and start with simple IPv6 greenfields can not leap ahead of 
"developed" nations with all their historic IPv4 baggage too much. 

Cheers
    Toerless
> 
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
> 
> 1. http://r.elandsys.com/r/10933