Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-prismatic-reflections-00.txt]

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sun, 22 September 2013 04:49 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 4019621F967A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Sep 2013 21:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 1VC2zHGbdwWK for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Sep 2013 21:49:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C2E121F9654 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Sep 2013 21:49:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-9-215.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.9.215]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r8M4nYUk020150 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 21 Sep 2013 21:49:37 -0700
Message-ID: <523E76BC.4040009@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 21:49:00 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-prismatic-reflections-00.txt]
References: <523BD51A.2080101@gmail.com> <C91E67751B1EFF41B857DE2FE1F68ABA153DB96C@tk5ex14mbxc272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <C91E67751B1EFF41B857DE2FE1F68ABA153DB96C@tk5ex14mbxc272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Sat, 21 Sep 2013 21:49:38 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 04:49:44 -0000

On 9/21/2013 9:40 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
> 1) Encourage protocol designs that rely on peer-to-peer transmission,
> rather than intermediate relays, because relays are natural targets
> for interception services.

Unless you are interacting on the same local net segment, when is
Internet communications not through a relay?  Router, MTA, Web cache,
whatever.

Given that, ultimately, there are always routers, what is the realistic 
improvement you are suggesting?


> 2) Encourage distributed services over centralized services. For
> example, social networking services today are heavily centralized.

+1

Except that essentially all services other than email have gained 
popularity in centralized form, including IM.  So there appear to be 
some important and difficult operational and usability barriers, 
standing in the way of more truly distributed applications.


d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net