Re: Internet 2020 Goals

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Mon, 19 May 2014 00:23 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 083541A021F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 May 2014 17:23:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dE4pZsP6-B9K for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 May 2014 17:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 013FF1A021D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 May 2014 17:23:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mb-aye.local (c-67-188-0-113.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.188.0.113]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (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 joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <53794ED6.70305@bogus.com>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 17:22:46 -0700
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
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)" <nd@syndicat.com>, Ofer Inbar <cos@aaaaa.org>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Internet 2020 Goals
References: <CAMm+LwiNxZYcT5QEseyUfQAXuZ28ufvr5V4c=chuT5d9gJSgeA@mail.gmail.com> <20140518025903.GO371@mip.aaaaa.org> <b532727c-f12b-4860-8f7f-30e1b378ca43@email.android.com>
In-Reply-To: <b532727c-f12b-4860-8f7f-30e1b378ca43@email.android.com>
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 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Mon, 19 May 2014 00:22:53 +0000 (UTC)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/yxaoiUZSGrjxjvvflB_XOWV3Mqk
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 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 <cos@aaaaa.org> 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 http://www.seeky.org 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
>