[Din] Re: next steps for DINRG

[Lixia Zhang <[e-mail]>]

Hi Thomas, 

thanks for your great set of questions. 
Just a personal comment: most of your questions seem to me related to one basic question one way or another: what is exactly the definition of "Internet decentralization" that we are aiming at?

I think clarifying this definition would directly answer the questions about VMs vs bare-metal, machine locations etc. This would also indirectly touch on some other questions (e.g. do so-called Web3 systems have bake-in decentralization). 

I also appreciate your suggestion of identifying potential relations between DINRG and some WGs work.

Lixia

> On Oct 18, 2024, at 12:30 PM, Thomas Hardjono <[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]>