Re: The ecosystem is moving

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 13 May 2016 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC4B412D10A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 May 2016 13:00:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FjvjkVGkAEeM for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 May 2016 13:00:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x230.google.com (mail-lb0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EF1E12B028 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 May 2016 12:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-x230.google.com with SMTP id ww9so21562456lbc.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 May 2016 12:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=dO+uBLKUpH+f68BMcXqcgSGpYMAnF8cAGWn+EfSUfAY=; b=GPirESD6OVPselyXhlZ53crfIkBQz+p21BBZr7XcvnDHeOUSU4k0O0FVExaHGYGV66 h3RprOvWIPPDP8ren2+pHZ9y+cvH2IKGpPPSSQs26eUtq+93RxKK+JmoYJDK2JJYPIkj SZE1haMc1+pxQWqcoHfz+5Nmz9qYQNZlbvZnhT6npl3xRGLwsTXubrqZndHQQMcHN0SC eI3e2FHo2gI6NXr+cfvPe2jkSbJPpEbVZou3GMXmDUdqIxzeEr5tgYiLx/ZLACb+7oMW ACVujp+eWvB2PA9C1ZC//43cot1F95jP/AkbTuwNN3JbVS5DyKCpAbg2T9LcV3NKpQsP jI6g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dO+uBLKUpH+f68BMcXqcgSGpYMAnF8cAGWn+EfSUfAY=; b=JZAMHupgwAkcP2eRLkhcV5skxtVUbnQwQKwq3eiqnSYA0Ej/cXkk+K6HAYZQ1W7AYx U5dY9+bD6kx1w6bluRUkP0A1XtB/YtXRus06RZX62crpq0YAH949Y/8eNUIHNNm+qK2T /otOlVnaoqVGfKZVrpSGz3NxtDEsfD/5Mig2Bt9GLKYuu0XwYp8xOhQyOAyJwmSKck45 Y2qOoIEwyvxxzqfTFb2AuaeHaZ5ajzBkFtxIL8f2TDehLXMXc4w+6uWdjivcEJyEjKDp Z57HdwXdzaGz6NH11s4Xovc7Gy1iWVbvL7l50qE/1JF4EzDrlzjMQLLw491jsYOYS6/R WJeQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FW0/8VfKYrMQ6rGamwsomnvPKTyVB3VjvKro2XZfftl2sz8a6HN5RJqVo5LQ5THOcg9PAnXW5hfspIqqA==
X-Received: by 10.112.95.20 with SMTP id dg20mr7200685lbb.58.1463169596729; Fri, 13 May 2016 12:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.153.135 with HTTP; Fri, 13 May 2016 12:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5736307E.9000805@dcrocker.net>
References: <20160513165714.035DB1A4B7@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp> <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605131301300.10810@bofh.nohats.ca> <CAPt1N1=DOL7ysKb0pspZz+EbyVaVn=KCSeqQ=MBBU0vCXDcPpw@mail.gmail.com> <57361558.2010700@dcrocker.net> <CAPt1N1n6gh8r-jGWon9rmjkDENmbTmgG4TRfgT1z256DiZt3zg@mail.gmail.com> <5736307E.9000805@dcrocker.net>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 15:59:17 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1mNeQWVK3xtYnuRjBWROP2abbY43P_MwA3n8HgmNTk=pg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: The ecosystem is moving
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113606580f41250532beb84e
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/50K0szOTX8cjhCPVFMkpAy8i1Tg>
Cc: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@simon.songbird.com>, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 20:00:05 -0000

Yes, we could certainly do better.   I think you are mistaken about the
worldwide web, though.  Not only is it an example of a distributed database
of massive scope, but the various additional hops to which you referred are
specified in detail in many cases, not just ad-hoc.

I wonder if the reason you are so bearish on the worldwide web is that it's
not a _clean_ distributed database.   It's quite messy.   But best is the
enemy of good enough, and the www is certainly that.

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/13/2016 11:20 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com
>>     To date, we really only have two services that demonstrate open (ie,
>>     multi-administration) interoperability at Internet scale:  email and
>>     DNS.
>>
>>
>> TCP, IP, UDP, NFS, DHCP, TLS, SSH, FTP, HTTP, NNTP, SIP, ...
>>
>
>
> So, yes, I did intend my comment to be provocative and did suspect I was
> missing one or another service.  But I also messed up, by not making clear
> I was targeting open, /distributed/, /applications-level/ services. (And
> yes, for this kind of discussion, DNS is an application.)
>
> That is, I meant the qualifying test to be that there often is casual
> interoperability across a /sequence/ of independent administrations, and
> use by a very large fraction of the Internet.
>
> Alia's BGP reference was the biggest surprise -- thank you, Alia! --
> because I think it /does/ qualify and it hadn't occurred to me.
>
> The problem with all of the others cited above is that they aren't at used
> at scale or aren't really used with open, multi-hop interoperability.  Much
> of the list, above, is for lower-layer protocols.
>
> FTP and HTTP are simple, single-hop client/server mechanisms.  The latter
> is, of course, widely used, but it's a one-hop service.  (In reality, of
> course, the web has all sorts of additional hops, if one looks at content
> distribution, and other mechanisms, but they are behind the scenes and
> under tight control.)
>
> NNTP is a very nicely distributed service, but it is not used at scale.
>
> As I understand SIP use, the multi-hop mechanisms are another example of
> tightly-control operational prior arrangement, behind the scenes.  So it
> might qualify for "at scale" (though it might not) but it's operation isn't
> sufficiently open -- ie, permitting /casual/ interoperation.
>
> I'm a fan of xmpp/jabber, but it, too, simply hasn't attained sufficient
> 'at scale' use.
>
> Hence my slightly-modified claim that, other than email and DNS (and, yes,
> BGP), we have been strikingly unsuccessful at deploying new distributed
> application services and getting them to be successful at scale.
>
>
>
>
> d/
>
> --
>
>   Dave Crocker
>   Brandenburg InternetWorking
>   bbiw.net
>