Re: The ecosystem is moving

Dave Crocker <> Fri, 13 May 2016 19:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F66C12D14F for <>; Fri, 13 May 2016 12:52:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NDg13q6kjRDK for <>; Fri, 13 May 2016 12:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A00C912B028 for <>; Fri, 13 May 2016 12:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id iv1so43697763pac.2 for <>; Fri, 13 May 2016 12:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=from:reply-to:subject:references:to:cc:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Jg9YpmSB6QvanoLEgfZ5vU4lVj0wqhKCj83cJJOr6pc=; b=e/mcgr4204pM5n+n86fSaymvkJINBBt3XntGaS9WfAM0LAZKehL2r4N1BsnoBxnEle lkdKfnh//QFlj5KH2LjK5pZ3fMYC4CINCk4CEJ8svIslDadrTLiBNVhKgdAmjE4Bjvbq aw5Q+oYrtCNo5mUfv36o0DCz+BihsYzOS72KgH8dlyscCUE1S61ODtWQXuauZS1+0Ssu u+sZsRbM3N+nN6EDfg+SG5r4dTDdFsoHnDO27W2Ei0PEXZZe/zg/iUwf289apItx75mj RBSsrsvllm6MCiKht/4J6/N/IjNxuqYjCxgZFN9ammAIbgdVjxCexNCdrGvfapB3Tnbs Dj4w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:reply-to:subject:references:to:cc :organization:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Jg9YpmSB6QvanoLEgfZ5vU4lVj0wqhKCj83cJJOr6pc=; b=kml2VLGLoqO+JQ5t5FWZ1p5Vv+vCiWtz1r3cJOIFgMCmWQ9RnimAAAUU6ipQNRteBC OyvS8fFGeoNVdh+OrBKnIUgI4wxXCxHLAxK9/FTzx9UXyrvtglCNOyrhL/Q2rcmCff3z GOxPg6BLs2cEmkQwMW9uxQpH3BsGWNVo6MHDaasuzvgGv7p7UxHN0QZJeVCf/0D86Zvk ZYpstIoGln6PZ/UN7DMMYspQB7P2z7zYfgZJUqZa/YvaDuXmymIAkVEX/4CmIdg9mkeY SXa8LpMWGWA8t34aFx/kX3vXP+w2C8I4Lek1/xZ2RIQFkyv0XeNzieqsEJdCILDhGGYw gkQQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVSva5C4eCAVnodGkSWY/6iHuzal4k4EfVtsWYEhMB2MrD1KS/cQ/rJfBgszLBQLw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id qo10mr25228656pac.141.1463169175178; Fri, 13 May 2016 12:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id ez6sm29368087pab.12.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 13 May 2016 12:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dave Crocker <>
X-Google-Original-From: Dave Crocker <>
Subject: Re: The ecosystem is moving
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: Ted Lemon <>, Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 12:52:30 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Paul Wouters <>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <>, " Discussion" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 19:52:57 -0000

On 5/13/2016 11:20 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Dave Crocker <
>     To date, we really only have two services that demonstrate open (ie,
>     multi-administration) interoperability at Internet scale:  email and
>     DNS.

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.



   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking