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

Brian E Carpenter <> Mon, 30 December 2019 19:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A2F7120B4E for <>; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:21:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oIc8Si50Rr4G for <>; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:21:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::530]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 867EE120B4D for <>; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:21:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id k197so18439699pga.10 for <>; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:21:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0+nohfi/AtK+wVL0U4QnYjBxYzVSMhnYhzkHqhtUxM0=; b=Gz4js8JmxBoxtAKutG2PNWxV0iv6fGrV5Idf39ayy6GI/nDK2vzmaThQQqdDRSmtej 9GD/dLUAQeMKHcc8ZtrhGQKSn7XfZ8GYyVjMeobIe5+2bk50b+mLKnF5Y/X1Rz8PhB7W /NIp2To/bqDaH6c55skzCk+6m1IG/W6d9D61VvRlTPEjnwKkmf5/hj8K/rckgy0CEWLL EeEa5JlwamI4OIZ5VTOQWeyyvknd21bNcpbvt57CwxpeFXXebMcaytRFOOr22lxCTOe7 PF21RkgptjmV18tyg3WYAi3t6rRBaSIf/xK/2ZPSA5puNnQSQb7i8KWLypaHJpkyhkPH 36DA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=0+nohfi/AtK+wVL0U4QnYjBxYzVSMhnYhzkHqhtUxM0=; b=tBThWTdRLXKku7U6FKnwqQfz2Fn0RAmpb3xJ2Jih5WlBmdvzr5/qvME/hop6c8kMQi IxXr2ySAW8ZRVxZPfbWq6MbP9myOnDovMYblG0w0HV87dCVTd9TWq/pxbMSFhJkaD5TY 9RvUW3G9vek5nuahezUjuDBmVRGfmyMLh34YpMgwNey9yfRXorCBEYLZPnE80ozQi1VC tELNKXGMlJT65AT844r4MiZTH/InDNJY2nG71+if7hlrATrqafNSTlYSc5lqqU1ZDVlu BiSHTB39tRFmMBA5ck7rSzT+dWTL+GrrJLe0MmuMvVqFr/ieUIZIf82E7qTtZUjFJSAG vFDA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVUWf5Vc99YmogP/AwqyVSqospPWtclQScniGqZpHWW9Ec5dZNB tlD8dGH7j0fdXm4A+Aij5731HAhf
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzJoSU/lkfkY7o6RmIYo43aywxkTVk9qIlxLReDN1EiF1aBP+pKvXU9b+Z/dSn3fMu/tbyD3g==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8dd0:: with SMTP id j16mr54423561pfr.186.1577733701662; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:21:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id j14sm47923825pgs.57.2019. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:21:41 -0800 (PST)
References: <> <> <> <> <LO2P265MB05733E4BD5A72EDEF96D3DE2C2290@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 08:21:38 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 19:21:44 -0000

On 31-Dec-19 01:04, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>> Il 30/12/2019 12:35 Christian <> ha scritto:
>> Hi Vittorio,
>> I don't understand your objections.
>> Are they?
> This is not yet another discussion on DoH - yes I have problems with how it is being deployed, though mostly different from the ones you list(*), but this is not the topic here. The discussion is rather about the IETF's pretense not to be making Internet policy (DoH is just an example where this pretense has been widely challenged) 

Sorry, I don't get it. I've taken my own decision about DoH policy, by using a browser that
has a mechanism for avoiding DoH, because I think it puts power over the integrity of the namespace into the wrong hands. Other people, in other geographies, might have an opposite policy. Many end users may not even know that they have a policy choice. This is utterly outside the control of the IETF.

Earlier, you wrote:

>> But, as I said, the need for global Internet policies will not go away just because we do not know how to fulfill it - they will just be decided in other ways, a huge private oligopoly being the most likely and the scariest one.

Welcome to capitalism. Except that a large part of the policy landscape is set geographically by varying political systems, so what we actually have is a very complex interplay between various transnational oligopolies and ~200 political systems. Again, utterly outside the control of the IETF.

In this environment, designing for resilience seems like a wise strategy.


> and about the idea of global Internet policy-making processes.
> (*) if you're interested in this, here is a recent panel discussion with multiple views: