Re: [hrpc] new title for draft-tenoever-hrpc-political

[Amelia Andersdotter <[e-mail]>]

On 8/18/18 11:12 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 03:52:45PM -0400, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
>> 1. The scope seems to be limited to IETF standards over the past 20
>> years.  It  would seem a stretch to apply more broadly, but you could
>> try if a lot of changes were made, e.g., treating the scores of other
>> standards bodies.
> It might well be that section 5 has gradually focussed the discussion
> toward IETF standards.  It's not clear to me that this is a good idea,
> because (for instance), while W3C standards are only for the web and
> not the whole Internet, an _awful lot_ of them are directly relevant
> to the material in the draft.  Moreover, the standards-making activity
> at W3C is similar to, without being the same as, the IETF style.  In a
> different way, the activity of the GSMA might be directly relevant to
> internetworking in a few areas (more on this below).  This suggests to
> me, however, that the draft needs to spend more time on some of those
> other standards efforts (or else, as you say, restrict its focus
> exclusively to the IETF.  I just think it would be a much less
> interesting result if it applied only to the IETF, because the
> obvious response to it would be that any issues it raises would only
> be true of the IETF and therefore one just shouldn't use the IETF for
> those cases).


The core issue of research is knowing how to limit yourself. Should an
IRTF RG dig down into political considerations that may have an impact
at W3C, ETSI or 3GPP?

Or rather - is your criticism of the draft such that you are concerned
that activities undertaken in other standardisation fora directly limit
or impact the ability of the IETF or IRTF to exhibit either value
neutrality or political considerations, causing implicitly political
choices made by the IETF to actually not be the moral responsibility of
the IETF as such, but rather a consequence of what peer SDOs are doing?

I'm doubtful that this line of investigation will be fruitful.

I was recently introduced to a metaphor for the internet as a "lasagna
model", where each layer of communication is independent and autonomous
from other layers of communication, and therefore each has its own
responsibility to optimise for good privacy and security (which was the
particular focus of that interaction). This fits, in my view, with the
general gist of the IETF and it's already ongoing processes.

The "lasagna model" is an allegory for not discarding technical
justifications for security in one layer of the lasagna, only because
there is a theoretical possibility that security may come to be dealt
with in a different layer of the lasagna. When I encountered the
"lasagna" metaphor, it also specifically was accompanied by an
observation that many legalistic regulatory frameworks are in fact badly
suited to "lasagna" technologies: specific regulatory frameworks
frequently assume that responsibilities can simply be shuffled around or
designated to any particular party somewhere in the value chain (this is
also something I see a lot of in Tonys and Nalinis comments, when they
are not dealing with semantic questions).

Part of the thrust of my work with Niels, has been exactly taking into
account the "lasagnesque" qualities of IETF and internetworking
standardisation: rather than obscuring the particular layers of the IETF
from public view, they are raised as relevant in and of themselves.
Broadening the scope to any number of inter-relating lasagna layers
would detract from this illustration.

best regards,

Amelia


>> 2. "Internetworking" is never defined, so who knows what that means?
> I think it is the activity of making different networks, formally
> independent and otherwise notionally contractually unbound to one
> another, interoperate through a common substrate protocol with as much
> as practical of the intelligence at or near the end of the internet.
> TCP/IP is, in this view, an internetworking protocol because it is end to
> end yet does not depend on transitive contractual relationships
> through the entire path in order to allow network flows.  The ARPANET
> NCP is _not_ an internetworking protocol, and neither is something
> like the catanet approach with smart gateways.  Similarly, several
> "internet of things" protocols (like ZigBee and ZWave) are not really
> internet protocols at all, but kinds of local network that require a
> gateway which then connects to the internet (or possibly the global
> Internet).  Therefore, …
>
>> 3.  X.25 data networks, SDH/SONET, SS7, mobile telephony networks are
>> not designed for internetworking?  Really? :-)
> …really, or anyway sort-of-really.  There is an argument to be made
> for X.25, though I sometimes wonder whether the VC/PVC approach really
> was internetworking given the focus on the DTE.
>
> SDH/SONET is something on which you happen to be able to build
> internets (just as Ethernet is) but it is not actually an
> internetworking technology as I am using the term.  It most certainly
> _is_ a network technology, so if the draft wants to talk about all
> network technologies I agree it ought to be included.  But that seems
> to me to be a much larger topic than the draft is discussing, and I
> think it will be hard to expand this discussion to include (e.g.)
> ITU-T and ISO standards effectively, given that their development
> works quite differently.
>
> SS7 is not, in my meaning, an internetworking protocol because phone
> systems simply aren't internetworks.  They rely on transitive
> contractual relationships (sometimes those contracts are encoded as
> treaties or national law, but they're still not merely best efforts
> the way internets are).  They are, again, important networks.  They're
> also networks that rely on multiple networks connected together.  But
> that interconnection does not happen as an internet does.
>
> Finally, some of the parts of the mobile telelphony environment are
> internetty, and some other parts are not.  It's hard for me to speak
> generically.  I do think that at least many parts of 5G are not
> intended to be internet protocols, but instead to substitute the
> catanet style of networking for internetworking.  Whether that is a
> good idea is an open question (but, fortunately, not one for this
> discussion).
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>

-- 
Amelia Andersdotter
Technical Consultant, Digital Programme

ARTICLE19
www.article19.org

PGP: 3D5D B6CA B852 B988 055A 6A6F FEF1 C294 B4E8 0B55