Return-Path: 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 E1B3612B030 for ; Sat, 14 May 2016 15:41:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[FSL_HELO_HOME=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no 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 rT0o1oustXxF for ; Sat, 14 May 2016 15:41:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net (server1.neighborhoods.net [207.154.13.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEF4112B01F for ; Sat, 14 May 2016 15:41:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5ACCCC45E; Sat, 14 May 2016 18:41:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.6.2 (20081215) (Debian) at neighborhoods.net Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (server1.neighborhoods.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id uSNsdx6Lx56b; Sat, 14 May 2016 18:41:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Miless-MBP.fios-router.home (pool-108-26-191-201.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [108.26.191.201]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BE757CC43B; Sat, 14 May 2016 18:41:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: The ecosystem is moving To: Richard Shockey , ietf@ietf.org References: <20160513165714.035DB1A4B7@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp> <57361558.2010700@dcrocker.net> <5736307E.9000805@dcrocker.net> <389489ad-1f0c-3d2d-fd90-816507322e04@meetinghouse.net> <61E903B4-EC9F-433E-A4CF-FDF9183971D1@shockey.us> From: Miles Fidelman Message-ID: Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 18:41:23 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <61E903B4-EC9F-433E-A4CF-FDF9183971D1@shockey.us> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------33F2A4F13259BCCFE0A56749" Archived-At: X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org 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: Sat, 14 May 2016 22:41:29 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------33F2A4F13259BCCFE0A56749 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 5/14/16 5:46 PM, Richard Shockey wrote: > In Line .. > Also in line. > > *From: *ietf on behalf of Miles Fidelman > > *Date: *Friday, May 13, 2016 at 9:38 PM > *To: * > *Subject: *Re: The ecosystem is moving > > Back to the original point, for a moment: > > Stephane Bortzmeyer > Wed, 11 May 2016 12:58 UTCShow header > > > A very interesting paper (I said "intesresting", I didn't say I > agree!) on open networks where independant nodes with independently > developed programs interoperate thanks to standards. The author claims > closed and centralized systemes are better, because they allow faster > evolution (he uses security as an example). > > Many IETF cases mentioned (XMPP, IPv6, email...) > > https://whispersystems.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/ > > > My long-standing observation is that the climate has changed. In the > early days, there was both "demand pull" for new protocols, and an > environment that encouraged (and to an extent) funded new protocol > development and deployment. > > Since then, the climate has changed: > > - it's very hard to get a new protocol into the ecosystem (there are > quite a few useful protocols, that simply are not supported) > > RS> Like security protocols? Dare I say it its harder and harder to > get any work done in standards bodies and the IETF in particular? We > have met the enemy and it is us… are we the new ITU? That is another > thread altogether. > > > > - the drivers have changed from greater interconnection and > interoperability (back to the original ARPANET drivers of resource > sharing and collaboration) - to "can it be monetized?" > > RS> Duh! Time to market. That said genuine interconnection and > interoperability still does have value. Both the internet and the > legacy as well as evolving global SIP voice network proves that. > There is a strong counter argument that long term value in global > communications, namely persistent revenue streams, are built on > globally interoperable services. ATT, DT, BT, FT, Bell, NTT etc have > not gone out of business, though they endlessly whine about losing > some of the value models. We can send them some cheese to go with > their whining. > Worse than that, I think. The first generation protocols were not driven my market at all - think Ray Tomlinson and email, or Tim Berners-Lee and HTTP. Nobody ever set out to make money from them - and nobody really has (except for some hosting). > In the short term Layer 7 silos can work, especially in closed user > communities, think instant messaging in the financial community and > secure public safety applications as you correctly point out but at > global scale you hit a wall eventually. > > It's simply a lot easier to deploy a new SaaS, behind an API, and to > charge for it, than it is to deploy new protocol infrastructure. > > RS> +1 That is certainly what is going on in Real-time Voice Services. > Think Skype in its original deployment. I noted that the piece called > out the reuse of phone numbers as persistent global identifiers for > service delivery. Oh Internet domains .. they are soooooo 90’s J > > I totally get that. TN’s are globally unique they are ubiquitous, > linguistically neutral and people have proven that if you use them > correctly you can make a boat load of money. WhatsApp? Wow use the > phone numbers and the existing national regulatory number allocation > regime. Centralize your application ..collect 8 Billion dollars and do > not pass GO. Works for me! Why didn’t I think of that? > > If I had 5 euro/dollars/pounds for every time I’ve heard “Phone > numbers are stupid” I be sitting in the sun in St. Barts or the South > of France with a cold glass of Champagne and would have resigned from > this list years ago. > > > > The exception seems to be when there is a strong "forcing function" - > applied top-down. DoD Force Transformation & the Command & Control > Research Program drove new operational models into the military > environment - into networks, into system specifications, and into > doctrine. Examples that come to mind: > - XMPP is widely used for tactical chat > - DIS is widely used to support distributed simulation and training - > including deployment of persistent training federations > - Tactical Data Links (e.g., Link-16) are all over the place > - DDS is widely used for sensor-weapon linkages > Also of note - NNTP remains widely used on the SIPRNET, at the top of > the MDMP (Military Decision Making Process) > > Another example that comes to mind is the Digital Libraries Initiative > - which forced a lot standards and protocols for library system > interoperability. > > IMHO, without such forcing functions, the natural tendency is toward > centralized, proprietary services - and back toward a world of walled > gardens. Even in areas where we have a measure of widespread > interoperability - such as calendaring - we see things like Google > pulling iCal support - making it ever so much more tedious to schedule > a meeting. > > RS> Excellent observation and spot on with the issue with iCal. Don’t > get me started with trying to sync Outlook for Mac with the rest of my > Apple device infrastructure. Gurrrrr. > For what it's worth - I'm starting to push the idea of some kind of equivalent to the CCRP or Digital Libraries initiative - time for a new forcing function. -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra --------------33F2A4F13259BCCFE0A56749 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 5/14/16 5:46 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:

In Line ..


Also in line.

 

 

From: ietf <ietf-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
Date: Friday, May 13, 2016 at 9:38 PM
To: <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: The ecosystem is moving

 

Back to the original point, for a moment:

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Wed, 11 May 2016 12:58 UTCShow header


A very interesting paper (I said "intesresting", I didn't say I
agree!) on open networks where independant nodes with independently
developed programs interoperate thanks to standards. The author claims
closed and centralized systemes are better, because they allow faster
evolution (he uses security as an example).

Many IETF cases mentioned (XMPP, IPv6, email...)

https://whispersystems.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/


My long-standing observation is that the climate has changed.  In the early days, there was both "demand pull" for new protocols, and an environment that encouraged (and to an extent) funded new protocol development and deployment.

Since then, the climate has changed:

- it's very hard to get a new protocol into the ecosystem (there are quite a few useful protocols, that simply are not supported)

 

 

RS> Like security protocols?   Dare I say it its harder and harder to get any work done in standards bodies and the IETF in particular?   We have met the enemy and it is us… are we the new ITU?   That is another thread altogether.



- the drivers have changed from greater interconnection and interoperability (back to the original ARPANET drivers of resource sharing and collaboration) - to "can it be monetized?"

 

 

RS> Duh! Time to market.  That said genuine interconnection and interoperability still does have value. Both the internet and the legacy as well as evolving global SIP voice network proves that.   There is a strong counter argument that long term value in global communications, namely persistent revenue streams, are built on globally interoperable services.  ATT, DT, BT, FT, Bell,  NTT etc have not gone out of business, though they endlessly whine about losing some of the value models.  We can send them some cheese to go with their whining.


Worse than that, I think.  The first generation protocols were not driven my market at all - think Ray Tomlinson and email, or Tim Berners-Lee and HTTP.  Nobody ever set out to make money from them - and nobody really has (except for some hosting).


 

In the short term Layer 7 silos can work, especially in closed user communities, think instant messaging in the financial community and secure public safety applications as you correctly point out but at global scale you hit a wall eventually.

It's simply a lot easier to deploy a new SaaS, behind an API, and to charge for it, than it is to deploy new protocol infrastructure.

 

RS> +1 That is certainly what is going on in Real-time Voice Services. Think Skype in its original deployment.  I noted that the piece called out the reuse of phone numbers as persistent global identifiers for service delivery.  Oh  Internet domains .. they are soooooo 90’s J 

 

I totally get that.  TN’s are globally unique they are ubiquitous, linguistically neutral and people have proven that if you use them correctly you can make a boat load of money.  WhatsApp?  Wow use the phone numbers and the existing national regulatory number allocation regime. Centralize your application ..collect 8 Billion dollars and do not pass GO.   Works for me!  Why didn’t I think of that?  

 

If I had 5 euro/dollars/pounds for every time I’ve heard “Phone numbers are stupid” I be sitting in the sun in St. Barts or the South of France with a cold glass of Champagne and would have resigned from this list years ago.



The exception seems to be when there is a strong "forcing function" - applied top-down.  DoD Force Transformation & the Command & Control Research Program drove new operational models into the military environment - into networks, into system specifications, and into doctrine.  Examples that come to mind:
- XMPP is widely used for tactical chat
- DIS is widely used to support distributed simulation and training - including deployment of persistent training federations
- Tactical Data Links (e.g., Link-16) are all over the place
- DDS is widely used for sensor-weapon linkages
Also of note - NNTP remains widely used on the SIPRNET, at the top of the MDMP (Military Decision Making Process)

Another example that comes to mind is the Digital Libraries Initiative - which forced a lot standards and protocols for library system interoperability.

IMHO, without such forcing functions, the natural tendency is toward centralized, proprietary services - and back toward a world of walled gardens.  Even in areas where we have a measure of widespread interoperability - such as calendaring - we see things like Google pulling iCal support - making it ever so much more tedious to schedule a meeting.

 

 

RS> Excellent observation and spot on with the issue with iCal.  Don’t get me started with trying to sync Outlook for Mac with the rest of my Apple device infrastructure.  Gurrrrr. 

 


For what it's worth - I'm starting to push the idea of some kind of equivalent to the CCRP or Digital Libraries initiative - time for a new forcing function.


-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra
--------------33F2A4F13259BCCFE0A56749--