[Din] Re: next steps for DINRG

[Dirk Trossen <[e-mail]>]

That is meant to be the Conext DIN workshop, sorry!

Dirk




From:Dirk Trossen <dirk.trossen=[e-mail]<mailto:dirk.trossen=[e-mail]>>
To:Thomas Hardjono <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;jon.crowcroft <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc:Chad Kohalyk <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;din <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date:2024-10-22 20:09:15
Subject:[Din] Re: next steps for DINRG

David Guzman in a co-supervised PhD with Joerg Ott has looked into those centralisation realities for ETH deployments. Not quite a single country but quite a limited set of cloud ISPs.

Got a paper coming up in the Context DIN workshop with some of those insights.

Interesting discussions for the RG indeed.

Best

Dirk




From:Thomas Hardjono <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
To:jon.crowcroft <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc:Chad Kohalyk <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;din <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date:2024-10-22 15:11:47
Subject:[Din] Re: next steps for DINRG

+1 agree, thanks Jon.

I think these kinds of ideas should be the meat of the discussions in DIN RG.


--thomas



From: Jon Crowcroft <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 at 2:55 AM
To: Thomas Hardjono <[e-mail]>
Cc: Chad Kohalyk <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Din] Re: next steps for DINRG
what if 90% of those blockchain/cryptocurrency nodes are running in the same country on a network powerd by a single electricity provider? with a single state controlled border to the rest of the world, for IP and people? or indeed we could have a decentralised phone-based currency that requires SIMs from a specific provider and government regstraton of users of those SIMs/phones with national id cards/passports ....

note the other way around, many cloud service providers are administratively/economically/politically (e.g. subject to laws from one dominant jurisdicrtion) centralised, but use decentralised or at least distributed or federated techniques to provide resilience - hence replicated state machines/consensus algorithms, conflict-free replicated data types all allow systems to scale across multiple data centers so that we get fault tolerance and continuous operation, but they are not organisationally decentralised in any way.

On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 8:33 PM Thomas Hardjono <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Just some quick thoughts on the “What’s next” question.

One of the things DINRG could focus on is the standards (architectures, protocols, etc.) and tools to measure the degree of decentralization of systems and networks (notably those DLT-based offerings that claim to be “decentralized”).

Let’s say a DLT network (e.g. blockchain) has 100 nodes and the network claims to be operating in decentralized manner.   What if it turns out that 90% of those nodes are actually VMs running in the cloud, and what if it turns out that 90% of those cloud-based VMs are running on the same Cloud Provider? (worse, what if they’re running on the same  Zones, like US-West and US-East).  Would you accept their claim of decentralization seriously?


Some possible future work for DINRG:

-- Could DIN look at protocols that report on which nodes are running on bare-metal, versus physically separated VMs, versus VMs clustered in a given zone.

-- Could Device-ID and device-stack identifiers be useful (building on protocols defined in the RATS WG and TEEP WG).

-- Could DIN leverage the work already being done in the IEF WGs (e.g. RATS, SCITT, etc), and also from other industry bodies (e.g. TCG DICE; OpenCompute; Confidential Computing Consortium; etc).

-- Could DIN be the funnel/filter into which near-mature proposal can be fed into working groups in the IETF. An example of this was the Group Security RG (GSEC) that funneled some ready items into the MSEC WG.

https://www.irtf.org/concluded/gsec.html
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/msec/about/



PS.  Yes I’m aware of economic papers/analysis stating that efficiency and cost-savings favors centralization.  In contrast, I’m referring to future so-called Web3 systems that bake-in decentralization patterns to avoid these concentrations of power.


Best

--thomas






From: Chad Kohalyk <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Friday, October 18, 2024 at 12:41 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [Din] Re: next steps for DINRG
Thanks Dirk.

One possibility is to discuss “What now?”

I think that was one of the conclusions of the IETF120 discussion: who should DINRG collaborate with in order to effect change?

In other words, what is DINRG’s theory of change? Where does the research go once it is complete? Is DINRG’s role purely observatory? On who’s behalf? (merely the IRTF?)

Possibly these were answered when DINRG was stood up, but based on the conversation in Vancouver it didn’t seem like the community understood what’s next.

So I submit this as a topic suggestion.

Thank you,

Chad Kohalyk



On Fri, Oct 18, 2024, at 1:41 AM, Dirk Kutscher wrote:

Dear all,

in Dublin, we are planning to continue our discussion on next steps for DINRG.

To that end, we are soliciting suggestions, interests indications, and questions here. If you have a suggestion, please feel free to share it here or by personal e-mail.

We will collect everything and then prepare a summary before the meeting.

As a bit of background:

As chartered, DINRG has different objectives:

  *   Investigation of the root causes of Internet centralization, and articulation of the impacts of the market economy, architecture and protocol designs, as well as government regulations;
  *   Measurement of the Internet centralization and the consequential societal impacts;
  *   Characterization and assessment of observed Internet centralization;
  *   Development of a common terminology and understanding of (de-)centralization;
  *   Interaction with the broader research community to explore new research topics and technical solutions for decentralized system and application development;
  *   Documentation of the outcome from the above efforts via different means (e.g., research papers and RFCs) as inputs to the broader conversation around centralization; and
  *   Facilitation of discussions between researchers, organizations and individuals involved in Internet standards and regulations.

Let us know, which of these objectives should be emphasized in your view, and whether you have specific interests within these topics that should be discussed more.
Best regards,
Dirk and Lixia
_______________________________________________
Din mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>


Attachments:

  *   signature.asc

_______________________________________________
Din mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>