Re: [Din] DINRG side meeting on Wednesday
Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu> Thu, 10 November 2022 19:21 UTC
Return-Path: <lixia@cs.ucla.edu>
X-Original-To: din@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: din@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E13BFC14CF11 for <din@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 11:21:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.006
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.006 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cs.ucla.edu
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id frn-RhE9Upyr for <din@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 11:21:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.cs.ucla.edu (mail.cs.ucla.edu [131.179.128.66]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA611C14F733 for <din@irtf.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 11:21:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB6953C01FA28; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 11:21:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id Nb5iXsKlHU5b; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 11:21:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 657413C020F7C; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 11:21:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 mail.cs.ucla.edu 657413C020F7C
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cs.ucla.edu; s=9D0B346E-2AEB-11ED-9476-E14B719DCE6C; t=1668108066; bh=AhOECi8P2Ec7EODOvLPCq0efEsIcEvqW10mJwg+qQFk=; h=From:Message-Id:Mime-Version:Date:To; b=pU33KtaJ/jRUpxrjqPWaTMsEdS8v0cMhly8ew5wIRwm2bhgi0Exadg7htYJMqRNaG Lup4d3oKwvsE3JYMb6mcD65o2OJLIg49vOCeA+EY6e0ahfMmJcxFgeNhkPjlDl4Y/v QfnCdg7z0qTt0Aj2YW/oPHj36gc43YYPmV2lfawU4Yv/TBewDMD7zYBZEyBlfVynsR FOROOqmgrjJyyhqR4C2Fr0DXMNKhUqij71DYdVkER8QfGs3KS015sPdoNcL72aE5mS 6uMINf1NzXqZG0h757mU4vG1YWiCzh+WCpTyCmdMfeDCKFVgmzScJMdbKCEYCHvSj0 odTZvV84bdpwA==
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.cs.ucla.edu
Received: from mail.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id SRpGSHV6sjEa; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 11:21:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (dhcp-931c.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.147.28]) by mail.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DCC0D3C01FA28; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 11:21:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu>
Message-Id: <9EBF908C-ECBD-48C0-B5AF-249570B4E8D1@cs.ucla.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7B342F5C-C4B4-418B-BC4B-27E9AB952697"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 11:21:02 -0800
In-Reply-To: <yDdbrMX7MWPEZTTvmSmhIvUn_Nr4dW1c5KmryVWmAZ-LWzoihAoomIIeInxFhgXkn6llvN2N6wP1afKSbYAtSlTMIwd8LCAArtlqNYo2LX4=@interpeer.io>
Cc: din@irtf.org
To: Jens Finkhaeuser <jens@interpeer.io>
References: <20221108082215.GA14862@openfortress.nl> <54BFCEE1-C2C7-47D6-B6DF-A16ED702814F@cs.ucla.edu> <20221109085146.GA17957@openfortress.nl> <E602078E-F8C2-498A-A35D-5309BFBDCA4D@cs.ucla.edu> <yDdbrMX7MWPEZTTvmSmhIvUn_Nr4dW1c5KmryVWmAZ-LWzoihAoomIIeInxFhgXkn6llvN2N6wP1afKSbYAtSlTMIwd8LCAArtlqNYo2LX4=@interpeer.io>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/din/NP4fPhIi5kr-HIa1EF60eUH6-9g>
Subject: Re: [Din] DINRG side meeting on Wednesday
X-BeenThere: din@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of distributed Internet Infrastructure approaches, aspects such as Service Federation, and underlying technologies" <din.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/din>, <mailto:din-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/din/>
List-Post: <mailto:din@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:din-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/din>, <mailto:din-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 19:21:13 -0000
top posting: Jens, agree with PoA (e.g. see my talk at DIN RG 2019 meeting https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/slides-105-dinrg-decentralization-from-the-ground-up-00 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/slides-105-dinrg-decentralization-from-the-ground-up-00>, which points to some our early work on PoA) 1/ our experience suggests that a critical issue with PoA is how to establish trusts among multiple parties. 2/ I probably misread Rick's 2nd point earlier: yes one potential DIN RG task could be collecting solutions from WGs that are relevant to decentralization designs. Lixia > On Nov 9, 2022, at 11:14 PM, Jens Finkhaeuser <jens@interpeer.io> wrote: > > Hi all, > > no additions to anything that's been said, but I do second Rick's second point (pun intended). > > The PoA work presented is a great example. It's a general technique for decentralization, and AFAIK they had a bit more resonance in IoT provisioning/onboarding than in our own group. It would be useful for work like this to be pushed out to working groups, as it were, because it's there that they might see adoption and effectively decentralize solutions again. > > I'm not sure how much of that we can do in an RG, but it'd be good to see. > > Jens > > > ------- Original Message ------- > On Wednesday, November 9th, 2022 at 22:48, Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu> wrote: > > >> > >> > >> Hi Rick, >> > >> thanks for your useful input. >> some quick comments below >> > >> 1/ regarding the suggestion of splitting to multiple groups: my view is that DIN RG should serve as the focal point for the decentralization efforts, help collect/organize information and ongoing efforts by the broader community. >> The amount of work is beyond daunting. Nevertheless, we must take a step forward, no matter how long the journey may be. >> > >> 2/ regarding the relation to IETF WGs: all working groups decide their own missions. Similarly, DIN RG decides its own: work with the community to gain a deeper understanding of the problem and solution spaces, and to share our understanding with the community. >> >> just my own 2 cents, >> Lixia >> > >>> On Nov 9, 2022, at 12:51 AM, Rick van Rein rick@openfortress.nl wrote: >>> > >>> Hi Lixia, >>> > >>>> DINRG side meeting is scheduled for 10:30-11:30AM tomorrow, in Room Richmond 6 (indicated in slide 7 of opening slides). It's located on West Wing, first floor. >>> > >>> Thanks. I have something overlapping that I'm afraid. Yesterday >>> I posted something on Zulu that represents my balanced view: >>> > >>> 1. A split into an overview group and technical group could be >>> useful, be it in different RG or in time; >>> > >>> 2. I do feel a need for a place to overview technology that spans >>> multiple IETF WGs, because they have a singular focus and our >>> work clearly taught us that several small changes are needed >>> in several places; we need a place where this overview can be >>> discussed, and turned into a statement towards IETF WGs. >>> > >>> I hope this is useful input for your discussion. Good luck! >>> > >>>> 2022-11-08, 10:32 >>>> > >>>> @George @Britta I also noticed the difference between big-picture and tech and a split would manage expectations for the two kinds of meetings. The reason I came to IRTF is in the hope to find a place to discuss the technical big-picture, which still is very technical, but it scatters over many IETF WGs that it is difficult to achieve decentralisation there alone. As in, proposals in an IETF WG touch upon so much more than the WG focus that it is asking a lot to take that all in. At least our work has been looking for a big idea and then wanted to find the smallest possible changes to get it running most everywhere, and that kind of overview can easily get broad and inquisitive, so more IRTF-alike than IETF-alike, even if it is highly technical. (IMHO) >>> > >>> Cheers, >>> -Rick >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Din mailing list >> Din@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/din > <publickey - jens@interpeer.io - 0x5C345E9C.asc>
- [Din] DINRG side meeting on Wednesday Lixia Zhang
- Re: [Din] DINRG side meeting on Wednesday Rick van Rein
- Re: [Din] DINRG side meeting on Wednesday Lixia Zhang
- Re: [Din] DINRG side meeting on Wednesday Lixia Zhang
- Re: [Din] DINRG side meeting on Wednesday Jens Finkhaeuser
- Re: [Din] DINRG side meeting on Wednesday Lixia Zhang