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

"Marc Blanchet" <> Sat, 28 December 2019 19:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA62120124 for <>; Sat, 28 Dec 2019 11:46:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 SB6g8FpSkWQr for <>; Sat, 28 Dec 2019 11:46:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E7CE120105 for <>; Sat, 28 Dec 2019 11:46:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 5so27035346qtz.1 for <>; Sat, 28 Dec 2019 11:46:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ffEmpdZ8ib7FPy5GKx7XC2NeE2y2WNQB0onr+4pkEuo=; b=hLc0+6sF4ggsdh9Gzmgvkgq+OaVQfLWF5FM+inH0zZ7G2CAMw5TAx7t5RC5WzSblyX 63xFzF14E5cOIhSGgst5PvPYdfJw1HWwFch9qExAg68wkaz+KDyDR1yIsC6EsUbZejC9 IzjK/keW2K8vpNL855AXANqwu/CGpuCFSa1EJeuOU/MDSU/tybrsCtD9tf9raBH7A0Rz IJIisuUo5w1uwESsvmzit4BHz6o9j1MWH1UD9B6A18haSr1I3HUmL+NXXrlNmvHkxGin TYNCmu6LMur/ZwgK6qcVJ7iOggBBLZbH9QNBNjzP14KC5m1ADgjMhv4kNyIqA6Ff5cgn 6O7g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ffEmpdZ8ib7FPy5GKx7XC2NeE2y2WNQB0onr+4pkEuo=; b=B44miyFgtDemY1Kw/mIztHKAlUPDoW6O9oao4i9yeuxx/zYCE2YsW/ngEOKUlT5fUL zjih10GmjzYj2iiCujdXgHi8r759D5tZ9C2DWQPL6x0t4oK3XI4IoSeY6MY6FvOQsaf1 Y5ZJ2z3/FcPE3kOOoJ21NOw3Bm9Musm2uwwlPHCdO3uUjrqqEOPtLQ1MkVo/z1PqK7wR oWjTdbEJ+d+wYdgKhSO+Vog46Z//opQVf9VpJLixykxzyNzQMy82YK+yk6Lqo8LcB+oZ pINHNh9atftiHtQfDE+OHUUfCc3jYWRVRRLhzTvKDFZGGvaIC0+xnZIPr08uphEnv6I7 BqOA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUs1q8lKxZNlI8Am7stpdU2DKiJaEo9OfU9LU84lBOpLDP30CKZ c2XLzYJs1rGT8ygETZvhpVfZyQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzZzxoK/XNFSgWP9fADm3VXwgL+jR7b4E/GwPAgQ1FTskLQ3v+bXJYJbZRtnbPebk8yEggH/Q==
X-Received: by 2002:aed:2ce4:: with SMTP id g91mr42517941qtd.352.1577562381351; Sat, 28 Dec 2019 11:46:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id m20sm10841942qkk.15.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 28 Dec 2019 11:46:20 -0800 (PST)
From: "Marc Blanchet" <>
To: "Andrew Campling" <>
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 14:46:18 -0500
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5671)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <LO2P265MB05733F3BE310F2B6DAFDA54FC2250@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <> <> <> <> <LO2P265MB05733E4BD5A72EDEF96D3DE2C2290@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <LO2P265MB0573E1B462A3804525BB2646C2250@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <LO2P265MB05733F3BE310F2B6DAFDA54FC2250@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 19:46:25 -0000

On 28 Dec 2019, at 14:31, Andrew Campling wrote:

> On Dec 28, 2019, at 19:06, Tony Li <> wrote:
>> Policy is just another means for some small group of people to tell 
>> other people what
>> to do. We reject that at its very basis. We do not want policy. We 
>> want cooperation.
>> The Internet works because we propose things and reach rough 
>> consensus on them. Those
>> who feel that it’s a Good Idea try it out. It gets tweaked. Others 
>> feel that it’s a Good Idea
>> and join in. Or not. Only when enough people participate does it 
>> become effective.
>> We do not need people to try to set policy. They are not welcome. If 
>> a group is constituted
>> to form policy, we will not follow it.
>> We do need Good Ideas. Folks who have them are welcome to propose 
>> them.
> That is ironically a policy of sorts, one which may or may not be 
> shared by others, and which may or may not be represent a rough 
> consensus view of those participating in the IETF.  I note however 
> that, for example, the number of people participating directly in the 
> IGF is significantly larger than that participating in the IETF and 
> that the former group is significantly more diverse in nature.  On 
> that basis, you could, to rephrase your words, argue that technical 
> decisions taken by the IETF are just another means for a small, 
> un-diverse group of people to tell other people what to do.  You may 
> find that those other groups are just as adamant in “rejecting that 
> at its very basis”, and that they have an equally strong expectation 
> of cooperation.
> Whilst it may be uncomfortable for some participants, some actions 
> taken by the IETF (and other groups like ICANN) do in fact have policy 
> implications for others.  I believe that it is foolish to ignore this 
> and pretend that the IETF can operate in a libertarian bubble, somehow 
> insulated both from the results of its own actions and from the views 
> of others.

IMHO, we are diverging pretty off the initial proposed charter. Well I 
can understand your point of view, I think the policy side, as you 
describe, should be outside the scope of the charter.

Can we come back to technical content?


> Andrew

> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list