Re: [arch-d] IAB Technical Discussion on Fragmentation: 2023-05-03

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Dominique,

On 02-May-23 23:02, Dominique Lazanski wrote:
> I agree with you, Vittorio, and to take that one step further, I continue to be disappointed in the lack of leadership and technical vision for the Internet from the IAB. Where is the clear statement of 3-5 year view? Is it just going to be “encrypt all things all the time” without discussion or any nuance?

I think that you may be over-interpreting the IAB's name to imply that it is in any real sense in charge of the Internet's architecture. I've always maintained that part of the Internet's strength is that nobody is in charge, and of course the IAB's, and the IETF's, influence is only over the protocols and architecture of the infrastructure layers, and essentially none over the physical topology, operations and above all how the application layers are deployed or used. So although I think the IAB does a bit better than your caricature, its scope is limited.

> 
> I’m also looking forward to understanding how fragmentation is defined. Personally, I’m disappointed in the lack of discussion on technical consolidation too.

I think they've both been discussed, and reveal the ongoing tussle between nation states' desire to prevent whatever activities they deem undesirable, and global surveillance-capitalism organisations out to maximise usage and profit. But that is a way wider topic that the IAB and IETF have little control over.

Regards
    Brian Carpenter
> 
> The ongoing issue with the I* is that though there is solid proof for the success of the multistakeholder model, there is a lack of consistent leadership at the top. It’s the same old, same old. We need some fresh thinking.
> 
> Dominique
> 
> 
>>
>> On 2 May 2023, at 11:38, Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>> Il 28/04/2023 23:54 CEST Andrew G. Malis <[e-mail]> ha scritto:
>>> Bob,
>>> I also had the same initial thought. And I've even got an RFC discussing pseudowire fragmentation, so I was looking forward to an IP fragmentation discussion!
>> I guess this is part of the current, extensive effort by the I* organisations (mostly ISOC and ICANN) to counter any renewed proposals for a different governance structure for the key technical resources of the Internet, i.e. names and numbers (did anyone say ITU?).
>> However, there is some ambiguity on whether this also extends to regulation at the application layer, like the recent efforts in Europe to establish rules that would force the global Internet industry to tailor their services to specific European norms (this may go as far, to give you an example of a current discussion, to require AI models to be able to forget all information they learned about a specific European citizen, which of course is not technically easy; but it also includes pro-competition measures against walled gardens, requirements for large online information platforms, and, more controversially, proposals to mandate the screening of personal messages for CSAM).
>> I am curious to see how the IAB defines "fragmentation" - this is an ongoing discussion at the already mentioned IGF PNIF - and thus what is the scope of this "technical discussion". Personally, I would encourage the IAB to stay out of the latter set of problems, as there is almost nothing technical in them - it's all about policy, values, interests and compromises.
>> Ciao,
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
>> [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>  
>> Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy
>> _______________________________________________
>> Architecture-discuss mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss