Re: Internet 2020 Goals

joel jaeggli <> Mon, 19 May 2014 00:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 083541A021F for <>; Sun, 18 May 2014 17:23:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.349
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dE4pZsP6-B9K for <>; Sun, 18 May 2014 17:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 013FF1A021D for <>; Sun, 18 May 2014 17:23:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mb-aye.local ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s4J0MqxH078126 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 19 May 2014 00:22:53 GMT (envelope-from
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 17:22:46 -0700
From: joel jaeggli <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/29.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Niels Dettenbach (Syndicat IT&Internet)" <>, Ofer Inbar <>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
Subject: Re: Internet 2020 Goals
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="NDM6NrpgElWgQApgGHMWLDvHSDcSNDLUG"
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 ( []); Mon, 19 May 2014 00:22:53 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 00:23:07 -0000

On 5/18/14, 12:53 AM, Niels Dettenbach (Syndicat IT&Internet) wrote:
> On 18. Mai 2014 04:59:03 MESZ, Ofer Inbar <> wrote:
>> The Internet isn't just for everyone to use, but also, the Internet
>> is for all of its "users" to *develop*.  The Internet is for
>> participants.
> ACK, but exactly these and similiar terms remembers me about the "Web
> 2.0" pseudo-paradigm with which "IT-analysts" and "experts" tried to
> make us happy some years ago, but the result was a new set of
> centralized, proprietary internet services like the "social media"
> gigants which - by the end of the day - made connectivity between
> peoples not easier nor flexible at all.

You're confusing outcomes and causes...

analysts don't make large economies of scale attractive, numbers do.

> Why i.e. in 2014 it is still not possible for users to have just
> "one" data record as their "primary internet address" on their i.e.
> business card (and this while having full freedom about where/on
> which server/provider having which service or part of service - i.e.
> in the old "fashioned" form of user@host (like in Email)?
> By RFCs and i.e. DNS infrastructure there still ARE enough open
> standards / protocols allowing (simplified) to "phone" or "talk"
> (SIP/RTP,  XMPP etc.), to "email" (SMTP), to "publish content" (HTTP,
> FTP, DAV etc.) or even "authenticate"/"sign" and much more over the
> same "address" and but by practice most of that lacks of realized
> interoperability of systems (i.e. most phones - devices and networks
> - still did not allow to input / process alphanumerics), XMPP is in a
> minor market position and "SIP is not SIP".  The DNS still offers
> features covering most of such an "address resolution" but not all
> client software can handle DNS so far.
> The "web 2.0" aera brought "single points of contacts" for users, but
> most users have more then a hand full of different "contact
> addresses", URIs to "be reachable" for different audiences of
> different customers of different service providers. A business card
> is as long as never before in many situations.
> Is'nt that "crazy"?
> A similiar situation we have in the widely proprietary "internet
> search market" where we was "going away" from former (and outdated)
> protocols/standards without something new, leaded to a oligopolized
> commercial search infrastructure and it could'nt be a "solution" to
> have more and more web spiders/robots running each web site or
> internet ressources, generating more and more overhead for more and
> more data redundancy in practice  (tried to concept a open
> "solution" on some times ago with a couple of
> colleagues).
> What i want to say here: There is a lot of further potential even in
> "old" and sometimes called "outdated" standards which we did not used
> in their full potential. On the other hand slightly standard
> extensions could offer a huge amount of user flexibility/freedom and
> ergonomics in practice for any user.
> Just my two cents...
> best regards,
> Niels