IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Thoughts from IETF-92

Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us> Tue, 31 March 2015 04:09 UTC

Return-Path: <richard@shockey.us>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 484F71B2A75 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 21:09:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 NO5Zh49R5hdZ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 21:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (qproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [173.254.64.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A163F1B2A71 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 21:08:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 9975 invoked by uid 0); 31 Mar 2015 04:08:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw3) (10.0.90.84) by qproxy1.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 31 Mar 2015 04:08:55 -0000
Received: from box462.bluehost.com ([74.220.219.62]) by cmgw3 with id A9or1q00n1MNPNq019ouoa; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 03:48:54 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=Juti8qIC c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=jTEj1adHphCQ5SwrTAOQMg==:117 a=jTEj1adHphCQ5SwrTAOQMg==:17 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=f5113yIGAAAA:8 a=Jklo8jbM_8AA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=MKtGQD3n3ToA:10 a=1oJP67jkp3AA:10 a=ZZnuYtJkoWoA:10 a=8WrITzYgnNwA:10 a=HGEM6zKYvpEA:10 a=emO1SXQWCLwA:10 a=wYoC3ZjoHMV1CCtf4aMA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shockey.us; s=default; h=Content-transfer-encoding:Content-type:Mime-version:In-Reply-To:References:Message-ID:To:From:Subject:Date; bh=5rhlsOCOn0RPVG4rt/SV6lQqns5HiSMmUnVFZUnivyg=; b=Uq+dMCSroCAKrQkolrPvlcBNnBuR62OSN4EOGVc5rz4zwA4bN5QsNyIqQ3gyOflsDTMHB9aqS8s0zA+oUtZrihWXenK783BRdgFiyUI59Z23vn+/pV84HpN0jvd2yRPn;
Received: from [108.56.131.201] (port=55143 helo=[192.168.1.12]) by box462.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <richard@shockey.us>) id 1YcnAb-00066e-BS; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 21:48:53 -0600
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.8.150116
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 23:48:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Thoughts from IETF-92
From: Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, dcrocker@bbiw.net, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <D13F8DEC.2300E%richard@shockey.us>
Thread-Topic: Thoughts from IETF-92
References: <7A5C678D-4897-4B9E-908F-14D7C389C48B@ietf.org> <D13F4955.22F18%richard@shockey.us> <551A0130.1050407@dcrocker.net> <551A0A39.40602@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <551A0A39.40602@gmail.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
X-Identified-User: {3286:box462.bluehost.com:shockeyu:shockey.us} {sentby:smtp auth 108.56.131.201 authed with richard+shockey.us}
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NYR8A5zHgElD2HhrCq_mxCuh1to>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 04:09:03 -0000

>
>And also, what should we *not* do? We decided many years ago, for example,
>that we should *not* weaken security to accommodate public policy. I'm
>sure
>there are other things in that category, e.g. we should *not* stop work on
>quality of service to accommodate naive "network neutrality" rules.


Excellent question. We should not waver from our core principals of rough
consensus and running code but lets face facts we are now what what we
have always feared.  We are ITU-T or at least we act like it. Its our
store now. 

That said ³with great power comes great responsibility²  We have gone down
this road before with RFC 2804 and wiretapping on the policy side.
Congestion control is a central problem. IMHO its insane that the US FCC
is trying to define packet loss as a metric for defining network
performance etc. There are idiots that believe all packets containing cat
videos are created equal but we know better. That is the larger issue we
confront.

I do not have all the answers here needless to say.





>
>    Brian
>
>> ISOC has done quite a bit to provide tutorials and tour guides for quite
>> a few folk that I thought were policy-based.
>> 
>> Not to say there isn't more to do, but I've no idea what.
>> 
>> d/
>>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email