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

Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com> Mon, 30 December 2019 09:56 UTC

Return-Path: <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D6AA120133 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 01:56:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=open-xchange.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g2GwxxLnDuDl for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 01:56:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.open-xchange.com (alcatraz.open-xchange.com [87.191.39.187]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B8EC120142 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 01:56:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from open-xchange.com (imap.open-xchange.com [10.20.30.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx4.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 288416A262; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 10:56:42 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=open-xchange.com; s=201705; t=1577699802; bh=F+iNbznnZKpDw7yW8nz0lfGpr0iYtoElIKBtiezIIzI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=E8tFbhvWmxUdk9EE8PlaR+Ol7f6jtUKLut4YgUrXhd3OYMwJGEOCIDKriWV5ZmHUg Uud2uMd97pW0hcWOqgJ3/Dyol428JAPkZCDHMQd1CPpFyS63H0wjPUfh4EbXyGp9cE E//Lfyr4ur27cMPJYfzLv713rfUEytAJgZdnhAQrTTICB1WPNXjjCUi7YLc3uxGvM7 Lap1YPTKfqwoW07HsZWNGcFpuEeBAHfo3v4KOIcJlUKUzAHzzog37tmBUQsUb7W5Ns 7PVXETBQRajYIgKpMMo3W7ZKbvHRSODW/AJfJ5qQ0vkuYLdXvgl5xibw1evUQ3MlfO YAI1ilGjo0tgg==
Received: from appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com (appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com [10.20.28.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1BEF33C0324; Mon, 30 Dec 2019 10:56:42 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 10:56:41 +0100 (CET)
From: Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Patrik_F=C3=A4ltstr=C3=B6m?= <paf=40frobbit.se@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
Message-ID: <1657137298.8209.1577699802014@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com>
In-Reply-To: <6AA0059F-2D29-4A1A-B651-CB9917C06A77@frobbit.se>
References: <f13e1588-35e0-2493-93d2-add3480bb207@cs.tcd.ie> <1127343564.5806.1577112317584@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com> <ebcca2be-6839-8f43-d74f-0e863e32cd2d@cs.tcd.ie> <2068147434.6516.1577178675917@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com> <LO2P265MB05733E4BD5A72EDEF96D3DE2C2290@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <20191227102943.GA14015@nic.fr> <1829722692.7358.1577443983540@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com> <20191227134419.GA19644@nic.fr> <m2r20oi8vk.wl-randy@psg.com> <295780f7-ebf3-79e4-0b2d-faaecfa0d984@nomountain.net> <7fedea81-6827-38c2-04b3-5854126b2d52@digitaldissidents.org> <6AA0059F-2D29-4A1A-B651-CB9917C06A77@frobbit.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.3-Rev3
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
Autocrypt: addr=vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQENBFhFR+UBCACfoywFKBRfzasiiR9/6dwY36eLePXcdScumDMR8qoXvRS55QYDjp5bs+yMq41qWV9 xp/cqryY9jnvHbeF3TsE5yEazpD1dleRbkpElUBpPwXqkrSP8uXO9KkS9KoX6gdml6M4L+F82WpqYC1 uTzOE6HPmhmQ4cGSgoia2jolxAhRpzoYN99/BwpvoZeTSLP5K6yPlMPYkMev/uZlAkMMhelli9IN6yA yxcC0AeHSnOAcNKUr13yXyMlTyi1cdMJ4sk88zIbefxwg3PAtYjkz3wgvP96cNVwAgSt4+j/ZuVaENP pgVuM512m051j9SlspWDHtzrci5pBKKFsibnTelrABEBAAG0NUJlcnRvbGEsIFZpdHRvcmlvIDx2aXR 0b3Jpby5iZXJ0b2xhQG9wZW4teGNoYW5nZS5jb20+iQFABBMBAgAqBAsJCAcGFQoJCAsCBRYCAwEAAp 4BAhsDBYkSzAMABQMAAAAABYJYRUflAAoJEIU2cHmzj8qNaG0H/ROY+suCP86hoN+9RIV66Ej8b3sb8 UgwFJOJMupZfeb9yTIJwE4VQT5lTt146CcJJ5jvxD6FZn1Htw9y4/45pPAF7xLE066jg3OqRvzeWRZ3 IDUfJJIiM5YGk1xWxDqppSwhnKcMOuI72iioWxX0nGQrWxpnWJsjt08IEEwuYucDkul1PHsrLJbTd58 fiMKLVwag+IE1SPHOwkPF6arZQZIfB5ThtOZV+36Jn8Hok9XfeXWBVyPkiWCQYVX39QsIbr0JNR9kQy 4g2ZFexOcTe8Jo12jPRL7V8OqStdDes3cje9lWFLnX05nrfLuE0l0JKWEg8akN+McFXc+oV68h7nu5A Q0EWEVH5QEIAIDKanNBe1uRfk8AjLirflZO291VNkOAeUu+dIhecGnZeQW6htlDinlYOnXhtsY1mK9W PUu+xshDq7lXn2G0LxldYwyJYZaJtDgIKqVqwxfA34Lj27oqPuXwcvGhdCgt0SW/YcalRdAi0/AzUCu 5GSaj2kaGUSnBYYUP4szGJXjaK2psP5toQSCtx2pfSXQ6MaqPK9Zzy+D5xc6VWQRp/iRImodAcPf8fg JJvRyJ8Jla3lKWyvBBzJDg6MOf6Fts78bJSt23X0uPp93g7GgbYkuRMnFI4RGoTVkxjD/HBEJ0CNg22 hoHJondhmKnZVrHEluFuSnW0wBEIYomcPSPB+cAEQEAAYkBMQQYAQIAGwUCWEVH5QIbDAQLCQgHBhUK CQgLAgUJEswDAAAKCRCFNnB5s4/KjdO8B/wNpvWtOpLdotR/Xh4fu08Fd63nnNfbIGIETWsVi0Sbr8i E5duuGaaWIcMmUvgKe/BM0Fpj9X01Zjm90uoPrlVVuQWrf+vFlbalUYVZr51gl5UyUFHk+iAZCAA0WB rsmACKvuV1P7GuiX3UV9b59T9taYJxN3dNFuftrEuvsqHimFtlekUjUwoCekTJdncFusBhwz2OrKhHr WWrEsXkfh0+pURWYAlKlTxvXuI7gAfHEQM+6OnrWvXYtlhd0M1sBPnCjbyG63Qws7Rek9bEWKtH6dA6 dmT2FQT+g1S9Mdf0WkPTQNX0x24dm8IoHuD3KYwX7Svx43Xa17aZnXqUjtj1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/fhVfoCu5SztLGUtIArYozcv185Q>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Internet resilience
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 09:56:47 -0000


> Il 29/12/2019 17:25 Patrik Fältström <paf=40frobbit.se@dmarc.ietf.org> ha scritto:
> 
> So, if people do not like what IETF do, people just ignore IETF.

However, what happened in other cases (at least, in the DoH case) is that the people that had to choose whether to embrace what the IETF had done were the same ones that had worked in the IETF to get the protocol released, so of course they chose to adopt it. 

The problem was rather that, while this decision had significant policy implications, that set of people was pretty small and partial in comparison to the set of people that would be affected by the policy implications. So, seen from outside the IETF, this was exactly a case of a few people exploiting their position - not a political power position, but a corporate/technical power position - to impose their desired policy and values onto everyone else, which ironically is what the IETF claims to reject in principle.

Of course the IETF can then claim that, when these people decided to implement the protocol in a way that could disrupt lots of stuff for lots of other people, they were not wearing their IETF hat, but their own employer's hat... but this is just going to upset the rest of the world even more, as it looks like a cheap excuse for not taking responsibility.

So, documents like RFC 7258 are a strong, unilateral policy decision, and claiming that "we just write them, then people are free to follow them or not" is not going to fly.

On the other hand, I share the concerns that were expressed by several people on the practicality of a single monolithic global policy-maker for the Internet, which IMHO will never be able to exist properly until a form of democratic planetary government will exist, which is possibly still several decades away, maybe centuries away in the future. 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.

Now, if we think that this discussion is off topic, we can get back to discussing an IAB charter on resilience... however I think this is a crucial issue that will determine if and how the Internet will still exist in the future.

(P.S. - for the person who marveled at the number of 200 countries in the world - the U.N. currently has 193 member states plus two observers)

-- 
 
Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com 
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy