Re: [Din] Updated charter proposal

Toerless Eckert <> Sun, 15 July 2018 01:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7233130E99 for <>; Sat, 14 Jul 2018 18:40:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.95
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jLg9QnHATP2s for <>; Sat, 14 Jul 2018 18:40:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18873130E90 for <>; Sat, 14 Jul 2018 18:40:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 679A258C4AF; Sun, 15 Jul 2018 03:40:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 4D6784402CB; Sun, 15 Jul 2018 03:40:15 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 03:40:15 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <>
To: Melinda Shore <>
Cc: Carsten Bormann <>, "" <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Din] Updated charter proposal
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of distributed Internet Infrastructure approaches, aspects such as Service Federation, and underlying technologies" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 01:40:24 -0000

On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 08:35:40PM -0400, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 7/14/18 7:10 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> > You are comparing a system (CDN) with one of its aspect (control),
> > that was not the question.
> Well, I don't know - it might have been.  I think it's possible
> to look at a number of different axes, including the question of
> centralized control (which, come to think of it, strikes me
> as one of the more significant aspects).

Sure, but the question was about the relationship between
distributed and decentralized for a single object/entity and
not comparing two different things, even if one is the superset of another.

> At any rate I think the question here is not to nail down a
> precise definition, but rather to get a basic handle on what
> is and is not in scope for the research group.

Right. And i was meaning to imply that we may simply want to establissh
the language notation that whenever we say "decentralized" we
mean "decentralized and/or distributed". Just to keep the langaage simple.

> I think that based on the original intent and on recent discussions, for
> example, something along the lines of a traditional distributed
> system like Amoeba would not be in scope, nor would technology
> based on a permissioned blockchain,

>  ... since both have highly interested in alternatives to the DNS...

I can not parse this.  Can explain this a bit more ?

> which is distributed
> but hierarchical and rooted in a small number of points of
> control.

Many blockchains are now also built hierarchical, and you can easily
add a distributed consensus mechanism to protect against an
attack against less than 50% of DNS root servers. 

I think you'll have a very hard time to define crisp criteria for
in/out of DINRG this way. Probably a lot easier to just stick to
the classical approach of figuring out what the top interest of
the RG contributors is, how many they can work on in parallel
and avoiding to step on other RGs feet. ;-)

> (allowing for the possibility of alternative hierarchies.

Alternative hierarchies are not a good thing to you ? 


> Melinda
> -- 
> Software longa, hardware brevis
> PGP key fingerprint  4F68 2D93 2A17 96F8 20F2
>                      34C0 DFB8 9172 9A76 DB8F