Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-iab-for-the-users-02> (The Internet is for End Users)

Keith Moore <> Thu, 06 February 2020 01:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B4B612008D for <>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 17:43:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.596
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nDcZhFh4SNkH for <>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 17:43:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7696812011A for <>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 17:43:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5634D22139; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 20:43:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 05 Feb 2020 20:43:10 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=ONZLfx jLGwuOPTLTTKopaq4pJNYvmY73Cq7RTtK1T8M=; b=Sfimi/tw43AiKxl5RgRP6k RaR5Aj0IzT9zpP7KndhS80DvLuZ4q0Yz0udikCSBTG/UhZQUEYJpckRcBAf1L87D VkJUCE1mD74fNkQ4VAcQyLUXrpghdIXB7cbTW/W9odc9BzhXtpBFKcTtuHtcsljZ ReUS5N+YpUot3ev4vUoB6Ck8HORfskigrZ6rklipkXDCMSz0WhYkRZrnvW09Z2ZZ Olsj54/h4nAZaav763j9Lo+SoKi7HeZ1zDpGtdg1R1HaLmnzY/cZxOvicZzQp7BA FsLzLyuppcdgSnZimIMtre8MBZW1ZY156FmAE5+hDUe312BQF4ObgzNHv2NHC2Rg ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:LW87XqAZYGL7vy4PgyVqFSvEbes77C4LYW8FoFgdD009-vfj9EbEMg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrhedvgdefkecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtsegrtderre dtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhr khdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucfkphepuddtkedrvddvuddrudektddrudehne cuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhr vgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:LW87Xg2WG1tP_8Gas2icNWBn20LxvplbjSnxJ9T0G0RPdG42mv5BiA> <xmx:LW87XgWbiTzy171M5iUQ-HNCzz17wvprmT39pRLceb8k4ggBe5Y3PQ> <xmx:LW87XqkeDX8a3qRC5Bt_O4rZqXLFGTwWSza04qx9tXy5oePY238XOA> <xmx:Lm87Xk3u0euKOuka_q7X_AL5cv5tdKfGUHfJd-nht7_EgjR4HbOTKw>
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A0A6B30600DC; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 20:43:09 -0500 (EST)
To:, "" <>
References: <>
From: Keith Moore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 20:43:07 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------22E78663B80D6741C81F8C79"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-iab-for-the-users-02> (The Internet is for End Users)
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: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 01:43:16 -0000

I'm generally ok with the document as written.   But I wonder if (in 
spite of its long history), it doesn't go far enough.   In particular it 
doesn't provide many examples of users' interests like privacy, 
security, reliability, maintainability, supportability, ease of use, 
platform-independence, etc.

The example cited in 4.2 of web browsers having multiple interoperable 
implementations, while somewhat true, seems like a poor one - since 
there seem to be a dearth of independent implementations that are usable 
and actively maintained.   The web has become so complex that a 
reasonably complete implementation is daunting and even Microsoft has 
given up trying to maintain its own.   The very widespread disregard for 
users' privacy on today's web seems to indicate that the web has not 
evolved to favor the interests of end users.   The demands of 
content-providers, rather than those of users, seem to have dictated the 
limitations of the current web, and efforts to reduce users' privacy 
risks seem like a drop in the bucket.

A few additional nits:

    In these situations, when one of those parties is an "end user" of
    the Internet - for example, a person using a Web browser, mail
    client, or another agent that connects to the Internet - the Internet
    Architecture Board argues that the IETF should favor their interests
    over those of parties.

s/those of parties/those of other parties/

    In this document, "end users," means non-technical users whose
    activities IETF standards are designed to support, sometimes

s/non-technical users/non-technical human users/