Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Mon, 21 October 2013 16:55 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.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 A15EC11E8411 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:55:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.515
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.515 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.084, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8x4IGGfLbkrX for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x234.google.com (mail-la0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 911F711E81ED for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f52.google.com with SMTP id eh20so771515lab.25 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=HztE/K/xDjVrts+pB1bqlBuDpXbHo6Qrd/HI3TGSxd8=; b=w+Toc2JMq6Aw9BCcvDOYmvXkSousipizMqWwT/04dYPEt1TLe+9SfDQpCXk2a1BoAd uCFMUx5nTo2j8FwlkNFQoO8x23PwzyTttPNlQmDJaOPNa5WjHkQTzFxErl2X/pM/OIpa F6cZSQKdPYzfvokt/K5fG1KlnPHgZ2q+MkmxVnUD0P+u23cwShA/F/vz78EcUFcXiRnN dgURek3mkSaSeQJ3ejp0PQdyMGyxTT/O+GJcrGR7l914hlKT+5x2W0N00huHYkZxftAB ybu0XuJ4xzN7YLK2Vupn+4aO6TgB1RbvQaS/vqSumGsz8YsRoUy9YtBs28FT9gIX3opc bAcw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.51.101 with SMTP id j5mr13756060lbo.17.1382374474997; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.148.165 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <52655738.80909@dcrocker.net>
References: <20131021125834.GA24167@nic.fr> <5265275B.8040105@dcrocker.net> <20131021133009.GA27979@nic.fr> <52655738.80909@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 12:54:34 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwi-1rVPsDCvFZ6oDyQSYL80n07DyfknX4imZBy9Zi-gOg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Internet standardisation remains unilateral
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1133646087665f04e943231b"
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 16:55:16 -0000

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> On 10/21/2013 9:30 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 09:08:43AM -0400,
>>   Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote
>>   a message of 27 lines which said:
>>
>>  He invented the datagram...
>>>
>>
>> Some people say it is Leonard Kleinrock. I welcome any precise
>>
>
> With a very strong interest in /not/ getting into the history debates,
> I'll point out that datagram is a term of art this is different from packet
> switching.  Besides the Wikipedia entry on Louis, I'll note that I've
> regularly hear him credited for influencing the work on IP.
>

Giving credit for particular inventions is always problematic. I had
occasion to review the history of the invention of email. There are many
people who made important contributions and not always the ones that they
got credit for.

And sometime the contribution is not coming up with an idea but to perform
triage.


Take the Web, every part of the Web had been proposed before by Ted Nelson.
The only difference between Tim's idea and Ted's was that Tim's could be
implemented. Ted had 110% of a solution Tim stripped that down to 90% that
could be deployed and even though the Web does not have referential
transparency or universal indexicality etc., it was good enough to allow
Google etc. to add those in afterward.

That is a pattern that I see repeated again and again in Internet
development. A lot of the early pioneers were crazy guys whose ideas were
too extreme to be fully realized and had to be interpreted by someone else.

The point here is that when we are looking at security solutions to defeat
PRISM, what may be the most important choice is not which problems are
solved but which are left out. I think that what we have today in email
security is a Ted Nelson scheme that tries to do be too much and ends up
failing to be anything.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/