Re: Internet 2020 Goals

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

I can see these as goals that the Internet Society might want to
adopt. I'm not sure that 2) and 3) are IETF goals in any way,
and I think we've got as close to stating 1) in technical terms
as we ever will (see RFC 7258 for the bibliography on that).

One more comment in line...

On 16/05/2014 07:16, Dave Cridland wrote:
> I find myself agreeing with pretty much everything you wrote here. The
> thing I agree with most of all is the idea of selecting some long-range
> goals so we can at least aim for them. My inlined comments are all minor.
> 
> On 15 May 2014 17:57, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> 1) Security: All Internet protocols should provide confidentiality and
>> integrity by default.
>>
>>
> I generally agree with this as a default stance, but I do have some worries
> that particularly on the constrained client end, we may need to ensure that
> we can lose much of the security. It's happened before.
> 
> I think we can ensure that the network proxies involved always handle
> services which require confidentiality and integrity, though.
> 
> This suggests we have a "zeroth law", as Asimov would put it, of:
> 
> 0) Interoperability: All Internet protocols should be capable of
> independent implementation on a range of platforms and deployments with no
> visible limitation in functionality.

Frankly I doubt that. Either it's fairly meaningless (a "range" could be
just two types of device) or it's impossible (some protocols are definitely
only going to work in specific environments; see ROLL for example).

   Brian

> 
> 
>> 2) Access: The Internet is for everyone and everyone should be able to
>> use it regardless of their geographic location or political
>> interference.
>>
>>
> I think "use" is far too weak here. I'm folding over to your next point, of
> course, somewhat, but perhaps "engage", or "take part in". A typical home
> user cannot, for example, spin up a webserver. An atypical user can, by
> punching suitable holes in NAT devices (oh, if only that were literal), but
> cannot run a VOIP service. I'd like to return to an Internet where if you
> could read a web page you could run a server.
> 
> 
>> 3) Autonomy: [Here I need a concise definition]
>>
>>
>>
> I entirely agree with your goals here, and "Autonomy" is a good name for it.
> 
> What about:
> 
> Autonomy: Every individual on the Internet should be able to assert
> ownership and control over their own data, and be on equal footing as
> regards both offering and consuming content and services, as well as
> communication.
> 
> So those are my goals. What goals should we be attempting to address?
>> What are realistic timescales?
>>
>> Are we just going to be happy with a faster Internet with an
>> effectively unlimited address space or do we have bigger goals?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
>>
>>
>