From nobody Tue Mar 19 10:58:27 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11720131606 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:58:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com 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 zMjJx_aNbuYM for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:58:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-xd34.google.com (mail-io1-xd34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C62513157C for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:58:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd34.google.com with SMTP id n11so18792727ioh.1 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:58:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=BnWZJ7JJxIAIihTfjyFL8kIh0Wzmktg2iBCDcU3TR+4=; b=VmD2VTnS7XtZHNWb8vl5iTzvx1/Cvpmm7fB22/3hJlovIjr6UcQPjWdEg31zUT2LNw 4XvpgJQivQYGLE5+GV+w51Sgp33nQSSS4okEyglFAjum2wwz3S3FyPhE3LkcIErJ/bDR qrhNSvcURKZZjFfs5qncjJe/xwtux/j3yqlMhRJV3NOzA8mg8MFiVQL2pd1BDY2rKVqA g85XHeRVu6ODvtO6ETPH+Ux7J82kIn+jRfrN1ukTaZ1p/I3uAhmcxGmefG0VQB7Usor9 5Vw+1G0DcKQbe0NEdYAkWsB9lwrCMue2Gc1zgXknWStY9qrmMp9uf3c6ZLI4EuJCuVL2 LBWQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=BnWZJ7JJxIAIihTfjyFL8kIh0Wzmktg2iBCDcU3TR+4=; b=LFd2bW79ULWFD65h19DR12aU1pB0IDW3DNjZoukHU4votk8BS/qZkMXNe9k2SHVxJZ kRBkX9UPFgbegjR01/TPFgvWCfJ8c7/5365ujXFA5nHZoWPryD22vbYfXENGj0WissPc wUt4jEGG2FwywsMvL66R9+MTloh1cUtp3FmrKVnDGt3ORtjwbRByrziIwtB00nOG4X6U xHJQTK8XoJkeHagVMKYdckAemKwC9WNgNk1Vn0gltopxITrcvLEkgPX8SfiFbSZTMR97 Xw7sU+4HOr/0lPh0ymJJXg6a+0jvpfqyAJ4W9k12iciXfNvrn8R9HTu69D1Ul7nBE9gw R2Iw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVtFdXys0L/rIiBUvCerxFmyWXzV/pWW06FaWogDBOyKlMrgBKi Ziy3X00o9Ewi6TQqcAtrd30A7eDdUNwBJtYvbeoS4ZKN X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwWjiHKT8maSnAh9L5kbpbb1rgESD6vIEKbQmfTeD9ErOA9TajHAh9mt+cYpSzOurrqRfqfNKruHEuBGyum7n0= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9908:: with SMTP id x8mr2278947iol.223.1553018301034; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:58:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <9D804712-96EC-4E35-93F6-F28152517094@consulintel.es> <389B0EC2-EECD-4BFE-89DD-BA6D0B09B11C@piuha.net> <1463EDA0-36FC-4FEE-AEEC-354C20820FC5@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: From: Eric Rescorla Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:57:42 -0700 Message-ID: To: architecture-discuss@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000029d2c5058476407e" Archived-At: Subject: [arch-d] Fwd: Finding the appropriate work stream for draft-nottingham-for-the-users X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 17:58:25 -0000 --00000000000029d2c5058476407e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re-sending with hopefully a better address. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Eric Rescorla Date: Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:55 AM Subject: Re: Finding the appropriate work stream for draft-nottingham-for-the-users To: Eliot Lear Cc: Jari Arkko , , IETF Without responding to Eliot's point in detail, one comparison point would be the HTML Priority of Constituencies: https://dev.w3.org/html5/html-design-principles/#priority-of-constituencies "In case of conflict, consider users over authors over implementors over specifiers over theoretical purity. In other words costs or difficulties to the user should be given more weight than costs to authors; which in turn should be given more weight than costs to implementors; which should be given more weight than costs to authors of the spec itself, which should be given more weight than those proposing changes for theoretical reasons alone. Of course, it is preferred to make things better for multiple constituencies at once." I've certainly found this to be a useful framing of design principles that helps one reason about alternative designs. Perhaps that's one direction to take this document. -Ekr On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 3:22 AM Eliot Lear wrote: > Hi Jari, > > First, thanks to Mark for writing a provocative draft worthy of his role > on the IAB. > > TL;DR I do not believe this document asks the right question, and further > believe that there may be a better approach to take. > > On 19 Mar 2019, at 09:06, Jari Arkko wrote: > > My personal opinion is that it would be useful for the IETF to state its > preference to benefit the users, and to begin with, consider the impacts > its technology may have on the various relationships among users, and > various other players. Of course, in many cases we are already doing this > (and debating it!), but there=E2=80=99s obviously always room for improve= ment. > > I do think though that if the document goes forward, it would be > beneficial to rethink the examples. =E2=80=9CNetwork operators and equipm= ent > vendors=E2=80=9D as the threat picture=E2=80=A6 doesn=E2=80=99t sound to = me like 2019 at all, with > all the technology and deployment changes we=E2=80=99ve had in the last f= ew years. > How about =E2=80=9Clarge content and application providers=E2=80=9D? This= seems like a > major issue in today=E2=80=99s Internet. > > > > You raise an important point. More broadly, I would find it strange that > someone participating here believes that he or she is *not* acting in the > interests of the end users. > > - Network operators believe they are acting in the interests of end > users by intercepting threats to them. > - Browser developers believe they are operating in the interests of > end users when they protect the privacy of communications. > - Social network providers believe they are operating in the interests > of end users by providing them fora in which to congregate. > - Content providers believe they are operating in the interests of end > users by providing them meaningful and sometimes entertaining content. > - Cloud providers believe they are operating in the interests of end > users by supporting applications. > - Firewall vendors believe they are operating in the interests of end > users even by eavesdropping on corporate communications to prevent > embezzlement. > - Some civil society organizations believe they are operating in the > interests of end users by preventing unwarranted and undetected > surveillance by governments. > - Governments believe they are operating in the interests of end users > by identifying risks to their citizens. > > The document, however, is framed as though only a handful of these groups > are operating in the interest of end users. And *that* is problematic, > because it will lead to incessant argument over just who represents 7 > billion people (did I mention the UN above?) with unpredictable and > potentially perverse consequences. > > This leads to a question: what behavior do we actively want to change? > What outcome went wrong that we would want to correct? Like you, Jari, I > am hard pressed to find an applicable example, which is why I suspect the > Examples section is so paltry. Put another way, what would be the > practical ramifications of adopting this work as a BCP? > > Having a food fight over who best represents the user isn=E2=80=99t produ= ctive. > We all think we do. And we all want to leave the world better than we > found it. I would, therefore, propose that we frame our purpose > accordingly, borrowing from the work of others, such as Hippocrates and > Maimonides. Practitioners of all sorts have ethics policies, including > ISOC and the IEEE. Maybe what we really want is a promise from > participants that they work for the betterment of society, however they > understand that to mean, and that the higher they rise in leadership at t= he > IETF, the more we will expect them to demonstrate having met that goal. > > If we are to take this up at all, and I am not opposed to doing so, I > would suggest that we first be able to agree on the goal, that we have so= me > understanding of what mechanism we want to use to achieve that goal, and > that we understand the ramifications of our choices. > > The worst possible world is one in which we short circuit difficult > decisions because we have enacted a policy that favors one view of users > over another without regard to the consequences. Applying a normative > imprimatur to this work that an IETF BCP carries would therefore be > premature. > > Eliot > > --00000000000029d2c5058476407e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Re-sending with hopefully a better address.

---------- F= orwarded message ---------
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:55 AM
Subj= ect: Re: Finding the appropriate work stream for draft-nottingham-for-the-u= sers
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com= >
Cc: Jari Arkko <jari= .arkko@piuha.net>, <architecture-discuss@iab.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>


Without responding to Eliot's point in detail, one compar= ison point would be the HTML Priority of Constituencies:

"In case of conflict, consider users over authors over imp= lementors over specifiers over theoretical purity. In other words costs or difficulties to the user should be given more weight than costs to authors; which in turn should be given more weight than costs to implementors; which shoul= d be given more weight than costs to authors of the spec itself, which should be given more weight than those proposing changes for theoretical reasons alone. Of course, it is preferred to make things better for multiple constituencies at once."

I've= certainly found this to be a useful framing of design principles that help= s one reason about alternative designs. Perhaps that's one direction to= take this document.

-Ekr

=

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 3:22 AM Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
Hi Jari,

First, thanks to Mark for writing a provocative draft worthy of his role = on the IAB.

TL;DR I do not believe this document a= sks the right question, and further believe that there may be a better appr= oach to take.

On 19 Mar 2= 019, at 09:06, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:

My personal opinion is that it would be useful for the IETF to state its = preference to benefit the users, and to begin with, consider the impacts it= s technology may have on the various relationships among users, and various= other players. Of course, in many cases we are already doing this (and deb= ating it!), but there=E2=80=99s obviously always room for improvement.
<= br>I do think though that if the document goes forward, it would be benefic= ial to rethink the examples. =E2=80=9CNetwork operators and equipment vendo= rs=E2=80=9D as the threat picture=E2=80=A6 doesn=E2=80=99t sound to me like= 2019 at all, with all the technology and deployment changes we=E2=80=99ve = had in the last few years. How about =E2=80=9Clarge content and application= providers=E2=80=9D? This seems like a major issue in today=E2=80=99s Inter= net.


You raise an= important point.=C2=A0 More broadly, I would find it strange that someone = participating here believes that he or she is not=C2=A0acting in the= interests of the end users. =C2=A0
  • Network operators bel= ieve they are acting in the interests of end users =C2=A0by intercepting th= reats to them. =C2=A0
  • Browser developers believe they are operating= in the interests of end users when they protect the privacy of communicati= ons. =C2=A0
  • Social network providers believe they are operating in = the interests of end users by providing them fora in which to congregate. = =C2=A0
  • Content providers believe they are operating in the interest= s of end users by providing them meaningful and sometimes entertaining cont= ent. =C2=A0
  • Cloud providers believe they are operating in the inter= ests of end users by supporting applications. =C2=A0
  • Firewall vendo= rs believe they are operating in the interests of end users even by eavesdr= opping on corporate communications to prevent embezzlement. =C2=A0
  • = Some civil society organizations believe they are operating in the interest= s of end users by preventing unwarranted and undetected surveillance by gov= ernments. =C2=A0
  • Governments believe they are operating in the inte= rests of end users by identifying risks to their citizens.
<= div>The document, however, is framed as though only a handful of these grou= ps are operating in the interest of end users.=C2=A0 And that=C2=A0i= s problematic, because it will lead to incessant argument over just who rep= resents 7 billion people (did I mention the UN above?) with unpredictable a= nd potentially perverse consequences.

This leads t= o a question: what behavior do we actively want to change?=C2=A0 What outco= me went wrong that we would want to correct?=C2=A0 Like you, Jari, I am har= d pressed to find an applicable example, which is why I suspect the Example= s section is so paltry.=C2=A0 Put another way, what would be the practical = ramifications of adopting this work as a BCP?

<= div style=3D"margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;line-height:normal">Having a fo= od fight over who best represents the user isn=E2=80=99t productive.=C2=A0 = We all think we do.=C2=A0 And we all want to leave the world better than we= found it.=C2=A0 I would, therefore, propose that we frame our purpose acco= rdingly, borrowing from the work of others, such as Hippocrates and Maimoni= des.=C2=A0 Practitioners of all sorts have ethics policies, including =C2= =A0ISOC and the IEEE.=C2=A0 Maybe what we really want is a promise from par= ticipants that they work for the betterment of society, however they unders= tand that to mean, and that the higher they rise in leadership at the IETF,= the more we will expect them to demonstrate having met that goal.

If we are to = take this up at all, and I am not opposed to doing so, I would suggest that= we first be able to agree on the goal, that we have some understanding of = what mechanism we want to use to achieve that goal, and that we understand = the ramifications of our choices.

The worst possible world is one in which we sh= ort circuit difficult decisions because we have enacted a policy that favor= s one view of users over another without regard to the consequences.=C2=A0 = Applying a normative imprimatur to this work that an IETF BCP carries would= therefore be premature.

Eliot

--00000000000029d2c5058476407e-- From nobody Tue Mar 19 19:45:30 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94D2B130EDB for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 19:45:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 Ny__rf1HGJxS for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 19:45:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi1-x231.google.com (mail-oi1-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C077128D52 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 19:45:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi1-x231.google.com with SMTP id v7so614200oie.8 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 19:45:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=c37pWOlZU7oiF3f5woDDXHpvB3+9YRgMKpAiYp3A13o=; b=sGGNo2EBFml/xv5EdV41CbSsJQOMbt2ZoijDwwOx3eMrThHpsUcK6b5l4vzAa5FCVz wcJzeDdfRLevCVNpbQzTsYq97XzEgLqz4fhAXRWp8+5Tf9ncsrNHbZozYtedLxDJuXM5 xAXLrdxB48gU7SW7pG57c/flEy4sTCgGgozD6fMCFUy8Q6+/iwEmFoxgNRXyG3nAegwV F88owgGMe3MuxiEMWpU/nC4pjgJ8175CsL0c5CB5t4SQhsufNqfeX1h/RkrNRmcU2pyM Aj7e3rMl8YGT7liz51Udk9b+IKlQ3ObneUBccD/8MrKTg1JndLADgPa/jhEJo81vSS4H qhdw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=c37pWOlZU7oiF3f5woDDXHpvB3+9YRgMKpAiYp3A13o=; b=bHCSe3ZL5w97grlqLn9k6k1u9NeWpG1du0l1CVFHM3wyyFhR6Insvqz+B+YnDmNTZo /wGXWu8rk3SIDwEV8AEC+jTuCjJKhlux3ZHK2h55eJ5M30TJ8PfqyXFM0DGyKcQIhDSC GSlEhfDKDt/F3ARYpxrFRIz5yDH9xme1rneBl+H+aF/j4VO1yJ0U+W1YH/fn5YfFFPYV u6dDrb6SfhDpuGxJbG7sguJdUKlGMVTqykGYnlZViGr1sTHc0gAXrNx/6HduqmppRw/Q jbwVdgFN0PW6YWOW/De3RVcYNMTA6cYBpfuwTyMLDkGyu6qbhsNWQ5CRiKVoA6WwwTTC sJTg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV2W6WsYrt8HhvveM4Bht+51rKdZlp7kFBMY4ouvMwsNCEob9Fp uWebpZfnZACME1S+YoIHwuoyaY8BtPnOnwDLL3c= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzj3qpk6saNXdDijoczBaEGM188QFyhmLw6JbTZlQQi9NYT9s8+BDpRV0h24yih2xbo2OCY1SdWbXNry2/V9b4= X-Received: by 2002:aca:812:: with SMTP id 18mr60855oii.134.1553049922782; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 19:45:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a9d:2065:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 19:45:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <9D804712-96EC-4E35-93F6-F28152517094@consulintel.es> <389B0EC2-EECD-4BFE-89DD-BA6D0B09B11C@piuha.net> <1463EDA0-36FC-4FEE-AEEC-354C20820FC5@cisco.com> From: Guntur Wiseno Putra Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 09:45:22 +0700 Message-ID: To: Eric Rescorla Cc: "architecture-discuss@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f7496605847d9cdd" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [arch-d] Fwd: Finding the appropriate work stream for draft-nottingham-for-the-users X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 02:45:27 -0000 --000000000000f7496605847d9cdd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear All, May I be allowed to give an idea: Should not we say that technologies --among which is the Internet-- live (as they are made possible by) for a society? --That society emerges motives (such a configuration of the historical, the economic, the political snd others of a society). --And, here the "end-users" is a part of the Internet environment, thus is a moment of success of the Internet programme. Regard, Guntur Wiseno Putra Pada Rabu, 20 Maret 2019, Eric Rescorla menulis: > Re-sending with hopefully a better address. > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Eric Rescorla > Date: Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:55 AM > Subject: Re: Finding the appropriate work stream for > draft-nottingham-for-the-users > To: Eliot Lear > Cc: Jari Arkko >, < > architecture-discuss@iab.org>, IETF > > > Without responding to Eliot's point in detail, one comparison point would > be the HTML Priority of Constituencies: > > https://dev.w3.org/html5/html-design-principles/#priority- > of-constituencies > > "In case of conflict, consider users over authors over implementors over > specifiers over theoretical purity. In other words costs or difficulties = to > the user should be given more weight than costs to authors; which in turn > should be given more weight than costs to implementors; which should be > given more weight than costs to authors of the spec itself, which should = be > given more weight than those proposing changes for theoretical reasons > alone. Of course, it is preferred to make things better for multiple > constituencies at once." > > I've certainly found this to be a useful framing of design principles tha= t > helps one reason about alternative designs. Perhaps that's one direction = to > take this document. > > -Ekr > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 3:22 AM Eliot Lear wrote: > >> Hi Jari, >> >> First, thanks to Mark for writing a provocative draft worthy of his role >> on the IAB. >> >> TL;DR I do not believe this document asks the right question, and furthe= r >> believe that there may be a better approach to take. >> >> On 19 Mar 2019, at 09:06, Jari Arkko wrote: >> >> My personal opinion is that it would be useful for the IETF to state its >> preference to benefit the users, and to begin with, consider the impacts >> its technology may have on the various relationships among users, and >> various other players. Of course, in many cases we are already doing thi= s >> (and debating it!), but there=E2=80=99s obviously always room for improv= ement. >> >> I do think though that if the document goes forward, it would be >> beneficial to rethink the examples. =E2=80=9CNetwork operators and equip= ment >> vendors=E2=80=9D as the threat picture=E2=80=A6 doesn=E2=80=99t sound to= me like 2019 at all, with >> all the technology and deployment changes we=E2=80=99ve had in the last = few years. >> How about =E2=80=9Clarge content and application providers=E2=80=9D? Thi= s seems like a >> major issue in today=E2=80=99s Internet. >> >> >> >> You raise an important point. More broadly, I would find it strange tha= t >> someone participating here believes that he or she is *not* acting in >> the interests of the end users. >> >> - Network operators believe they are acting in the interests of end >> users by intercepting threats to them. >> - Browser developers believe they are operating in the interests of >> end users when they protect the privacy of communications. >> - Social network providers believe they are operating in the >> interests of end users by providing them fora in which to congregate. >> - Content providers believe they are operating in the interests of >> end users by providing them meaningful and sometimes entertaining con= tent. >> - Cloud providers believe they are operating in the interests of end >> users by supporting applications. >> - Firewall vendors believe they are operating in the interests of end >> users even by eavesdropping on corporate communications to prevent >> embezzlement. >> - Some civil society organizations believe they are operating in the >> interests of end users by preventing unwarranted and undetected >> surveillance by governments. >> - Governments believe they are operating in the interests of end >> users by identifying risks to their citizens. >> >> The document, however, is framed as though only a handful of these group= s >> are operating in the interest of end users. And *that* is problematic, >> because it will lead to incessant argument over just who represents 7 >> billion people (did I mention the UN above?) with unpredictable and >> potentially perverse consequences. >> >> This leads to a question: what behavior do we actively want to change? >> What outcome went wrong that we would want to correct? Like you, Jari, = I >> am hard pressed to find an applicable example, which is why I suspect th= e >> Examples section is so paltry. Put another way, what would be the >> practical ramifications of adopting this work as a BCP? >> >> Having a food fight over who best represents the user isn=E2=80=99t prod= uctive. >> We all think we do. And we all want to leave the world better than we >> found it. I would, therefore, propose that we frame our purpose >> accordingly, borrowing from the work of others, such as Hippocrates and >> Maimonides. Practitioners of all sorts have ethics policies, including >> ISOC and the IEEE. Maybe what we really want is a promise from >> participants that they work for the betterment of society, however they >> understand that to mean, and that the higher they rise in leadership at = the >> IETF, the more we will expect them to demonstrate having met that goal. >> >> If we are to take this up at all, and I am not opposed to doing so, I >> would suggest that we first be able to agree on the goal, that we have s= ome >> understanding of what mechanism we want to use to achieve that goal, and >> that we understand the ramifications of our choices. >> >> The worst possible world is one in which we short circuit difficult >> decisions because we have enacted a policy that favors one view of users >> over another without regard to the consequences. Applying a normative >> imprimatur to this work that an IETF BCP carries would therefore be >> premature. >> >> Eliot >> >> --000000000000f7496605847d9cdd Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear All,

May I be allowed to give an idea:
Should not we say that technologies --among which is the Inter= net-- live (as they are made possible by) for a society? --That society eme= rges motives (such a configuration of the historical, the economic, the pol= itical snd others of a society). --And, here the "end-users" is a= part of the Internet environment, thus is a moment of success of the Inter= net programme.


Regard,

Guntur Wiseno Pu= tra


Pada Rabu, 20 Maret 2019, Eric Rescorla &l= t;ekr@rtfm.com> menulis:
Re-sending with hopefully a better = address.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
D= ate: Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: Finding the appropriate = work stream for draft-nottingham-for-the-users
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Cc:= Jari Arkko <j= ari..arkko@piuha.net>, <architecture-discuss@iab.org>, IETF &= lt;ietf@ietf.org>=


Without responding= to Eliot's point in detail, one comparison point would be the HTML Pri= ority of Constituencies:


"In c= ase of conflict, consider users over authors over implementors over specifiers over theoretical purity. In other words costs or difficulties to the user should be given more weight than costs to authors; which in turn should be given more weight than costs to implementors; which shoul= d be given more weight than costs to authors of the spec itself, which should be given more weight than those proposing changes for theoretical reasons alone. Of course, it is preferred to make things better for multiple constituencies at once."

I've= certainly found this to be a useful framing of design principles that help= s one reason about alternative designs. Perhaps that's one direction to= take this document.

-Ekr

=

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 3:22 AM Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
Hi Jari,

First, thanks to Mark for writing a provocative draft worthy of his role = on the IAB.

TL;DR I do not believe this document a= sks the right question, and further believe that there may be a better appr= oach to take.

On 19 Mar 2= 019, at 09:06, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:

My pers= onal opinion is that it would be useful for the IETF to state its preferenc= e to benefit the users, and to begin with, consider the impacts its technol= ogy may have on the various relationships among users, and various other pl= ayers. Of course, in many cases we are already doing this (and debating it!= ), but there=E2=80=99s obviously always room for improvement.

I do t= hink though that if the document goes forward, it would be beneficial to re= think the examples. =E2=80=9CNetwork operators and equipment vendors=E2=80= =9D as the threat picture=E2=80=A6 doesn=E2=80=99t sound to me like 2019 at= all, with all the technology and deployment changes we=E2=80=99ve had in t= he last few years. How about =E2=80=9Clarge content and application provide= rs=E2=80=9D? This seems like a major issue in today=E2=80=99s Internet.
=


You raise an importa= nt point.=C2=A0 More broadly, I would find it strange that someone particip= ating here believes that he or she is not=C2=A0acting in the interes= ts of the end users. =C2=A0
  • Network operators believe the= y are acting in the interests of end users =C2=A0by intercepting threats to= them. =C2=A0
  • Browser developers believe they are operating in the = interests of end users when they protect the privacy of communications. =C2= =A0
  • Social network providers believe they are operating in the inte= rests of end users by providing them fora in which to congregate. =C2=A0
  • Content providers believe they are operating in the interests of end = users by providing them meaningful and sometimes entertaining content. =C2= =A0
  • Cloud providers believe they are operating in the interests of = end users by supporting applications. =C2=A0
  • Firewall vendors belie= ve they are operating in the interests of end users even by eavesdropping o= n corporate communications to prevent embezzlement. =C2=A0
  • Some civ= il society organizations believe they are operating in the interests of end= users by preventing unwarranted and undetected surveillance by governments= . =C2=A0
  • Governments believe they are operating in the interests of= end users by identifying risks to their citizens.
The = document, however, is framed as though only a handful of these groups are o= perating in the interest of end users.=C2=A0 And that=C2=A0is proble= matic, because it will lead to incessant argument over just who represents = 7 billion people (did I mention the UN above?) with unpredictable and poten= tially perverse consequences.

This leads to a ques= tion: what behavior do we actively want to change?=C2=A0 What outcome went = wrong that we would want to correct?=C2=A0 Like you, Jari, I am hard presse= d to find an applicable example, which is why I suspect the Examples sectio= n is so paltry.=C2=A0 Put another way, what would be the practical ramifica= tions of adopting this work as a BCP?

Having a food fight= over who best represents the user isn=E2=80=99t productive.=C2=A0 We all t= hink we do.=C2=A0 And we all want to leave the world better than we found i= t.=C2=A0 I would, therefore, propose that we frame our purpose accordingly,= borrowing from the work of others, such as Hippocrates and Maimonides.=C2= =A0 Practitioners of all sorts have ethics policies, including =C2=A0ISOC a= nd the IEEE.=C2=A0 Maybe what we really want is a promise from participants= that they work for the betterment of society, however they understand that= to mean, and that the higher they rise in leadership at the IETF, the more= we will expect them to demonstrate having met that goal.

If we are to take th= is up at all, and I am not opposed to doing so, I would suggest that we fir= st be able to agree on the goal, that we have some understanding of what me= chanism we want to use to achieve that goal, and that we understand the ram= ifications of our choices.

The worst possible world is one in which we short cir= cuit difficult decisions because we have enacted a policy that favors one v= iew of users over another without regard to the consequences.=C2=A0 Applyin= g a normative imprimatur to this work that an IETF BCP carries would theref= ore be premature.

Eliot

--000000000000f7496605847d9cdd-- From nobody Tue Mar 19 20:49:57 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2834012785F for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 20:49:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 vI_gQ5Qx-Zg6 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 20:49:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi1-x229.google.com (mail-oi1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8419E1277D8 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 20:49:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi1-x229.google.com with SMTP id i21so686084oib.11 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 20:49:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=G3wdUth0GqQKCxYfNOE06nmi488IfzvYtR0X53GZmGY=; b=g0qn0BCRKqvbXrkj1jaCVwMbmhp/WBVM2FT8DSrd0KgbU9kWQadE52eQQ2HNJmmInM Gis6s8ybS7GQJwjKao6xrvaYxaFOnZjXY6Mmrd4MD96wnp6q5k7714aypwKoAM5yncuq qB7mFXcP8dEy9rCKpYVUwINAAkRW4bOs9G17ilsjyFrpcn3ZNrQrbGKUCb7z8iXMWvCD MzP91MoLr08eIMQs0wEZC3GPEFvD3If8qd/dfq0TfFxghLQn1TYJYjDAy1MI2fqZAalo iDF2IRM1s5yHzN/aWRe4g6S5kqT6yXdauClFhuPPAKgBY/omFgEu8GJUdbFJD77Jj1nI XEBQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=G3wdUth0GqQKCxYfNOE06nmi488IfzvYtR0X53GZmGY=; b=NAKoR38EuqBA4mnZmVp/FMWwp5hJhM1u4WSqxlioKPDCMpmc6OZmst/cG4EpXym6tH m7i33T+u2L1lzeme8k7bjsxPi/ke4ZVISjFVwnCu78bdjzr7vKx2iidR6euonrNE8yDW 5e+ieLXsobda1gIZEPQ13HZk1xUuKE96YbJgm1lV5HxoSymQLigcAxlk8yE7DyXbuwdC I1X85ViHysgYBG8PjHX2jdwGFuqDl83c9L4TnzKIkbQb9ztSJv6LiMInRMCIUFp+o/N+ 9I02qabfHoXhweGkIQRA/WJ3MmLuMEo+QwEQCptz0hZY/x7jmEzvKDiZa/y4i9kw0bMv ejyw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX32zvowAgG0JzXtBHDVBST7Ar7zPkDdtVqpnojFY184sB+Z5pJ 2lViwDSzv8lPMEyfG3lzRkbfZzXZq1dcrdLHQOo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwCNaJmWbKnGn/KiMNYJ5LwG1XZCmGP7KixVreqihNEguzo6nDoRJiVOLLI/78/IyuT8O7jOt0TY0kqX9jcYGc= X-Received: by 2002:aca:52c2:: with SMTP id g185mr3828081oib.128.1553053791737; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 20:49:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a9d:2065:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 20:49:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <9D804712-96EC-4E35-93F6-F28152517094@consulintel.es> <389B0EC2-EECD-4BFE-89DD-BA6D0B09B11C@piuha.net> <1463EDA0-36FC-4FEE-AEEC-354C20820FC5@cisco.com> From: Guntur Wiseno Putra Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 10:49:51 +0700 Message-ID: To: Eric Rescorla Cc: "architecture-discuss@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000092de4905847e833b" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [arch-d] Fwd: Finding the appropriate work stream for draft-nottingham-for-the-users X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 03:49:55 -0000 --00000000000092de4905847e833b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear All, Do I miss for something as I am new for this list: If the document meant in the current discussion is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-for-the-users/ ...? Regard, Pada Rabu, 20 Maret 2019, Guntur Wiseno Putra menulis: > Dear All, > > May I be allowed to give an idea: > > Should not we say that technologies --among which is the Internet-- live > (as they are made possible by) for a society? --That society emerges > motives (such a configuration of the historical, the economic, the > political snd others of a society). --And, here the "end-users" is a part > of the Internet environment, thus is a moment of success of the Internet > programme. > > > Regard, > > Guntur Wiseno Putra > > > Pada Rabu, 20 Maret 2019, Eric Rescorla menulis: > >> Re-sending with hopefully a better address. >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Eric Rescorla >> Date: Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:55 AM >> Subject: Re: Finding the appropriate work stream for >> draft-nottingham-for-the-users >> To: Eliot Lear >> Cc: Jari Arkko >, < >> architecture-discuss@iab.org>, IETF >> >> >> Without responding to Eliot's point in detail, one comparison point woul= d >> be the HTML Priority of Constituencies: >> >> https://dev.w3.org/html5/html-design-principles/#priority-of >> -constituencies >> >> "In case of conflict, consider users over authors over implementors over >> specifiers over theoretical purity. In other words costs or difficulties= to >> the user should be given more weight than costs to authors; which in tur= n >> should be given more weight than costs to implementors; which should be >> given more weight than costs to authors of the spec itself, which should= be >> given more weight than those proposing changes for theoretical reasons >> alone. Of course, it is preferred to make things better for multiple >> constituencies at once." >> >> I've certainly found this to be a useful framing of design principles >> that helps one reason about alternative designs. Perhaps that's one >> direction to take this document. >> >> -Ekr >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 3:22 AM Eliot Lear wrote: >> >>> Hi Jari, >>> >>> First, thanks to Mark for writing a provocative draft worthy of his rol= e >>> on the IAB. >>> >>> TL;DR I do not believe this document asks the right question, and >>> further believe that there may be a better approach to take. >>> >>> On 19 Mar 2019, at 09:06, Jari Arkko wrote: >>> >>> My personal opinion is that it would be useful for the IETF to state it= s >>> preference to benefit the users, and to begin with, consider the impact= s >>> its technology may have on the various relationships among users, and >>> various other players. Of course, in many cases we are already doing th= is >>> (and debating it!), but there=E2=80=99s obviously always room for impro= vement. >>> >>> I do think though that if the document goes forward, it would be >>> beneficial to rethink the examples. =E2=80=9CNetwork operators and equi= pment >>> vendors=E2=80=9D as the threat picture=E2=80=A6 doesn=E2=80=99t sound t= o me like 2019 at all, with >>> all the technology and deployment changes we=E2=80=99ve had in the last= few years. >>> How about =E2=80=9Clarge content and application providers=E2=80=9D? Th= is seems like a >>> major issue in today=E2=80=99s Internet. >>> >>> >>> >>> You raise an important point. More broadly, I would find it strange >>> that someone participating here believes that he or she is *not* acting >>> in the interests of the end users. >>> >>> - Network operators believe they are acting in the interests of end >>> users by intercepting threats to them. >>> - Browser developers believe they are operating in the interests of >>> end users when they protect the privacy of communications. >>> - Social network providers believe they are operating in the >>> interests of end users by providing them fora in which to congregate= . >>> - Content providers believe they are operating in the interests of >>> end users by providing them meaningful and sometimes entertaining co= ntent. >>> - Cloud providers believe they are operating in the interests of end >>> users by supporting applications. >>> - Firewall vendors believe they are operating in the interests of >>> end users even by eavesdropping on corporate communications to preve= nt >>> embezzlement. >>> - Some civil society organizations believe they are operating in the >>> interests of end users by preventing unwarranted and undetected >>> surveillance by governments. >>> - Governments believe they are operating in the interests of end >>> users by identifying risks to their citizens. >>> >>> The document, however, is framed as though only a handful of these >>> groups are operating in the interest of end users. And *that* is >>> problematic, because it will lead to incessant argument over just who >>> represents 7 billion people (did I mention the UN above?) with >>> unpredictable and potentially perverse consequences. >>> >>> This leads to a question: what behavior do we actively want to change? >>> What outcome went wrong that we would want to correct? Like you, Jari,= I >>> am hard pressed to find an applicable example, which is why I suspect t= he >>> Examples section is so paltry. Put another way, what would be the >>> practical ramifications of adopting this work as a BCP? >>> >>> Having a food fight over who best represents the user isn=E2=80=99t pro= ductive. >>> We all think we do. And we all want to leave the world better than we >>> found it. I would, therefore, propose that we frame our purpose >>> accordingly, borrowing from the work of others, such as Hippocrates and >>> Maimonides. Practitioners of all sorts have ethics policies, including >>> ISOC and the IEEE. Maybe what we really want is a promise from >>> participants that they work for the betterment of society, however they >>> understand that to mean, and that the higher they rise in leadership at= the >>> IETF, the more we will expect them to demonstrate having met that goal. >>> >>> If we are to take this up at all, and I am not opposed to doing so, I >>> would suggest that we first be able to agree on the goal, that we have = some >>> understanding of what mechanism we want to use to achieve that goal, an= d >>> that we understand the ramifications of our choices. >>> >>> The worst possible world is one in which we short circuit difficult >>> decisions because we have enacted a policy that favors one view of user= s >>> over another without regard to the consequences. Applying a normative >>> imprimatur to this work that an IETF BCP carries would therefore be >>> premature. >>> >>> Eliot >>> >>> --00000000000092de4905847e833b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear All,

Do I miss for something as I am new for this l= ist:
If the document meant in the current discussion is:


...?

Reg= ard,

Pada Rabu, 20 Maret 2019, Guntur Wiseno Putra <gsenopu@gmail.com> menulis:
Dear All,

May I be allowed to g= ive an idea:

Should not we say that technologies -= -among which is the Internet-- live (as they are made possible by) for a so= ciety? --That society emerges motives (such a configuration of the historic= al, the economic, the political snd others of a society). --And, here the &= quot;end-users" is a part of the Internet environment, thus is a momen= t of success of the Internet programme.


Regard,

Guntur Wiseno Putra


Pada Rabu, 20 Mar= et 2019, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> menulis:
Re-sending with hopefully a better address.

---------- Forwarded= message ---------
From: Eric= Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:55= AM
Subject: Re: Finding the appropriate work stream for draft-nottingha= m-for-the-users
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: Jari Arkko <jari..arkko@piuha.net>, = <archi= tecture-discuss@iab.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>


Without responding to Eliot's point in detail= , one comparison point would be the HTML Priority of Constituencies:
<= div>

"In case of conflict, consider users= over authors over implementors over specifiers over theoretical purity. In other words costs or difficulties to the user should be given more weight than costs to authors; which in turn should be given more weight than costs to implementors; which shoul= d be given more weight than costs to authors of the spec itself, which should be given more weight than those proposing changes for theoretical reasons alone. Of course, it is preferred to make things better for multiple constituencies at once."

I've= certainly found this to be a useful framing of design principles that help= s one reason about alternative designs. Perhaps that's one direction to= take this document.

-Ekr

=

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 3:22 AM Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
Hi Jari,

First, thanks to Mark for writing a provocative draft worthy of his role = on the IAB.

TL;DR I do not believe this document a= sks the right question, and further believe that there may be a better appr= oach to take.

On 19 Mar 2= 019, at 09:06, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:

My pers= onal opinion is that it would be useful for the IETF to state its preferenc= e to benefit the users, and to begin with, consider the impacts its technol= ogy may have on the various relationships among users, and various other pl= ayers. Of course, in many cases we are already doing this (and debating it!= ), but there=E2=80=99s obviously always room for improvement.

I do t= hink though that if the document goes forward, it would be beneficial to re= think the examples. =E2=80=9CNetwork operators and equipment vendors=E2=80= =9D as the threat picture=E2=80=A6 doesn=E2=80=99t sound to me like 2019 at= all, with all the technology and deployment changes we=E2=80=99ve had in t= he last few years. How about =E2=80=9Clarge content and application provide= rs=E2=80=9D? This seems like a major issue in today=E2=80=99s Internet.
=


You raise an importa= nt point.=C2=A0 More broadly, I would find it strange that someone particip= ating here believes that he or she is not=C2=A0acting in the interes= ts of the end users. =C2=A0
  • Network operators believe the= y are acting in the interests of end users =C2=A0by intercepting threats to= them. =C2=A0
  • Browser developers believe they are operating in the = interests of end users when they protect the privacy of communications. =C2= =A0
  • Social network providers believe they are operating in the inte= rests of end users by providing them fora in which to congregate. =C2=A0
  • Content providers believe they are operating in the interests of end = users by providing them meaningful and sometimes entertaining content. =C2= =A0
  • Cloud providers believe they are operating in the interests of = end users by supporting applications. =C2=A0
  • Firewall vendors belie= ve they are operating in the interests of end users even by eavesdropping o= n corporate communications to prevent embezzlement. =C2=A0
  • Some civ= il society organizations believe they are operating in the interests of end= users by preventing unwarranted and undetected surveillance by governments= . =C2=A0
  • Governments believe they are operating in the interests of= end users by identifying risks to their citizens.
The = document, however, is framed as though only a handful of these groups are o= perating in the interest of end users.=C2=A0 And that=C2=A0is proble= matic, because it will lead to incessant argument over just who represents = 7 billion people (did I mention the UN above?) with unpredictable and poten= tially perverse consequences.

This leads to a ques= tion: what behavior do we actively want to change?=C2=A0 What outcome went = wrong that we would want to correct?=C2=A0 Like you, Jari, I am hard presse= d to find an applicable example, which is why I suspect the Examples sectio= n is so paltry.=C2=A0 Put another way, what would be the practical ramifica= tions of adopting this work as a BCP?

Having a food fight= over who best represents the user isn=E2=80=99t productive.=C2=A0 We all t= hink we do.=C2=A0 And we all want to leave the world better than we found i= t.=C2=A0 I would, therefore, propose that we frame our purpose accordingly,= borrowing from the work of others, such as Hippocrates and Maimonides.=C2= =A0 Practitioners of all sorts have ethics policies, including =C2=A0ISOC a= nd the IEEE.=C2=A0 Maybe what we really want is a promise from participants= that they work for the betterment of society, however they understand that= to mean, and that the higher they rise in leadership at the IETF, the more= we will expect them to demonstrate having met that goal.

If we are to take th= is up at all, and I am not opposed to doing so, I would suggest that we fir= st be able to agree on the goal, that we have some understanding of what me= chanism we want to use to achieve that goal, and that we understand the ram= ifications of our choices.

The worst possible world is one in which we short cir= cuit difficult decisions because we have enacted a policy that favors one v= iew of users over another without regard to the consequences.=C2=A0 Applyin= g a normative imprimatur to this work that an IETF BCP carries would theref= ore be premature.

Eliot

--00000000000092de4905847e833b-- From nobody Tue Mar 19 21:38:56 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FCA2127AC2 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 21:38:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 E8ud0-rA17CB for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 21:38:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi1-x229.google.com (mail-oi1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 974BC127990 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 21:38:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi1-x229.google.com with SMTP id x188so737038oia.13 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 21:38:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=s9IL4B/CB7/qes6u5/XNpun9F2w6CCtaQO0xCOzwtkQ=; b=ZmTaHio5BnlnBd7+9hAJ0cq9C21CybKVSXuEHJ0VIo+2d7KMZ5vZQa/Ew9GBlQdNAF zDCngEOMqlmuD5So/lU6oWLvvF5tYS5ByRu2sl9wkUH+LCA592JufX27OYtXjWoFhIoJ 4svgC2y9Mwz133xxuJwdeUA5Z2/495LPtPTdF8cN5SESnBQv7z+C8SD0IXL2qO4ie9Gt jkgYDoVMO6Lw0FpNKNhYdB3o3TM+Nq9HM3hTA1ygCS9hHAY/He/BLUf4/Bn/s/h/3K+X PEj/2lHGZ+okvOREAS4dTXHop6M69VusID0b17AgDQRian2PjY+Hjj7qQgS5XKgpSYSR ay5w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=s9IL4B/CB7/qes6u5/XNpun9F2w6CCtaQO0xCOzwtkQ=; b=hIGg5Nk1R59tP/EbSJ24Vss7RGt7RajEIv0HHZyOcFHmWzfxor1aw9Oq8HDL4dy37K 1Mke9HuTuwkdzF98lFJ8A/5z1ExeCZX/m4cO7QKBU05B/I21edtNJJvPcwWsy5kjFJ34 gYqX+SqEoxKx2HrwMz0m4MhTO8E6KrraSENXmZ2DpH6YuQFyDUHXOmDPCkqbeTrP6Qyj CTLhMzGC+DeSm1bmmQnEJEWQ8brd0MKb9OVdI6x4CFQtUfrEjiawZSojeq6Sgcd2rLgc 8eugWFURbfAPAsezfRttB14xNO4AYXI3lMbG7HV4lWRCejY6UmbtpVvxpwvTMu90+gOV EMQg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV5oiQOApP2K9PCitnMgwOYhBdYbW4EvBA3/L1d0ankkAqD4EyL 3V1eRg9y4Oz2u0sEUBd50ZCSNJyz4pgMHdslHjs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxqdSqaivsebfCZat1fGY0r1LWb+G+ENFWKGw4o77BUWgRMyv9PSOuPRg0fDG0liABI9euabHEHUcpxPKrfnv0= X-Received: by 2002:aca:52c2:: with SMTP id g185mr3925382oib.128.1553056730755; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 21:38:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a9d:2065:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 21:38:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <9D804712-96EC-4E35-93F6-F28152517094@consulintel.es> <389B0EC2-EECD-4BFE-89DD-BA6D0B09B11C@piuha.net> <1463EDA0-36FC-4FEE-AEEC-354C20820FC5@cisco.com> From: Guntur Wiseno Putra Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:38:50 +0700 Message-ID: To: Eric Rescorla Cc: "architecture-discuss@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c0b86305847f32d5" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [arch-d] Fwd: Finding the appropriate work stream for draft-nottingham-for-the-users X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 04:38:55 -0000 --000000000000c0b86305847f32d5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear All, To add what I said in earlier messages: Could we not make an analogy between a food programme with the Internet-based programme of communications....? --There is a chain of providing with, cooking, and eating foods; those elements of the chain should be made secured. Thus the "end users" eat what has been provided with as cooked foods.... Regard, Guntur Wiseno Putra Pada Rabu, 20 Maret 2019, Guntur Wiseno Putra menulis: > Dear All, > > Do I miss for something as I am new for this list: > If the document meant in the current discussion is: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-for-the-users/ > > ...? > > Regard, > > Pada Rabu, 20 Maret 2019, Guntur Wiseno Putra menulis= : > >> Dear All, >> >> May I be allowed to give an idea: >> >> Should not we say that technologies --among which is the Internet-- live >> (as they are made possible by) for a society? --That society emerges >> motives (such a configuration of the historical, the economic, the >> political snd others of a society). --And, here the "end-users" is a par= t >> of the Internet environment, thus is a moment of success of the Internet >> programme. >> >> >> Regard, >> >> Guntur Wiseno Putra >> >> >> Pada Rabu, 20 Maret 2019, Eric Rescorla menulis: >> >>> Re-sending with hopefully a better address. >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: Eric Rescorla >>> Date: Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:55 AM >>> Subject: Re: Finding the appropriate work stream for >>> draft-nottingham-for-the-users >>> To: Eliot Lear >>> Cc: Jari Arkko >, < >>> architecture-discuss@iab.org>, IETF >>> >>> >>> Without responding to Eliot's point in detail, one comparison point >>> would be the HTML Priority of Constituencies: >>> >>> https://dev.w3.org/html5/html-design-principles/#priority-of >>> -constituencies >>> >>> "In case of conflict, consider users over authors over implementors ove= r >>> specifiers over theoretical purity. In other words costs or difficultie= s to >>> the user should be given more weight than costs to authors; which in tu= rn >>> should be given more weight than costs to implementors; which should be >>> given more weight than costs to authors of the spec itself, which shoul= d be >>> given more weight than those proposing changes for theoretical reasons >>> alone. Of course, it is preferred to make things better for multiple >>> constituencies at once." >>> >>> I've certainly found this to be a useful framing of design principles >>> that helps one reason about alternative designs. Perhaps that's one >>> direction to take this document. >>> >>> -Ekr >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 3:22 AM Eliot Lear wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Jari, >>>> >>>> First, thanks to Mark for writing a provocative draft worthy of his >>>> role on the IAB. >>>> >>>> TL;DR I do not believe this document asks the right question, and >>>> further believe that there may be a better approach to take. >>>> >>>> On 19 Mar 2019, at 09:06, Jari Arkko wrote: >>>> >>>> My personal opinion is that it would be useful for the IETF to state >>>> its preference to benefit the users, and to begin with, consider the >>>> impacts its technology may have on the various relationships among use= rs, >>>> and various other players. Of course, in many cases we are already doi= ng >>>> this (and debating it!), but there=E2=80=99s obviously always room for= improvement. >>>> >>>> I do think though that if the document goes forward, it would be >>>> beneficial to rethink the examples. =E2=80=9CNetwork operators and equ= ipment >>>> vendors=E2=80=9D as the threat picture=E2=80=A6 doesn=E2=80=99t sound = to me like 2019 at all, with >>>> all the technology and deployment changes we=E2=80=99ve had in the las= t few years. >>>> How about =E2=80=9Clarge content and application providers=E2=80=9D? T= his seems like a >>>> major issue in today=E2=80=99s Internet. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You raise an important point. More broadly, I would find it strange >>>> that someone participating here believes that he or she is *not* actin= g >>>> in the interests of the end users. >>>> >>>> - Network operators believe they are acting in the interests of end >>>> users by intercepting threats to them. >>>> - Browser developers believe they are operating in the interests of >>>> end users when they protect the privacy of communications. >>>> - Social network providers believe they are operating in the >>>> interests of end users by providing them fora in which to congregat= e. >>>> - Content providers believe they are operating in the interests of >>>> end users by providing them meaningful and sometimes entertaining c= ontent. >>>> - Cloud providers believe they are operating in the interests of >>>> end users by supporting applications. >>>> - Firewall vendors believe they are operating in the interests of >>>> end users even by eavesdropping on corporate communications to prev= ent >>>> embezzlement. >>>> - Some civil society organizations believe they are operating in >>>> the interests of end users by preventing unwarranted and undetected >>>> surveillance by governments. >>>> - Governments believe they are operating in the interests of end >>>> users by identifying risks to their citizens. >>>> >>>> The document, however, is framed as though only a handful of these >>>> groups are operating in the interest of end users. And *that* is >>>> problematic, because it will lead to incessant argument over just who >>>> represents 7 billion people (did I mention the UN above?) with >>>> unpredictable and potentially perverse consequences. >>>> >>>> This leads to a question: what behavior do we actively want to change? >>>> What outcome went wrong that we would want to correct? Like you, Jari= , I >>>> am hard pressed to find an applicable example, which is why I suspect = the >>>> Examples section is so paltry. Put another way, what would be the >>>> practical ramifications of adopting this work as a BCP? >>>> >>>> Having a food fight over who best represents the user isn=E2=80=99t >>>> productive. We all think we do. And we all want to leave the world b= etter >>>> than we found it. I would, therefore, propose that we frame our purpo= se >>>> accordingly, borrowing from the work of others, such as Hippocrates an= d >>>> Maimonides. Practitioners of all sorts have ethics policies, includin= g >>>> ISOC and the IEEE. Maybe what we really want is a promise from >>>> participants that they work for the betterment of society, however the= y >>>> understand that to mean, and that the higher they rise in leadership a= t the >>>> IETF, the more we will expect them to demonstrate having met that goal= . >>>> >>>> If we are to take this up at all, and I am not opposed to doing so, I >>>> would suggest that we first be able to agree on the goal, that we have= some >>>> understanding of what mechanism we want to use to achieve that goal, a= nd >>>> that we understand the ramifications of our choices. >>>> >>>> The worst possible world is one in which we short circuit difficult >>>> decisions because we have enacted a policy that favors one view of use= rs >>>> over another without regard to the consequences. Applying a normative >>>> imprimatur to this work that an IETF BCP carries would therefore be >>>> premature. >>>> >>>> Eliot >>>> >>>> --000000000000c0b86305847f32d5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear All,

To add what I said in earlier messages:
<= div>
Could we not make an analogy between a food programme wi= th the Internet-based programme of communications....? --There is a chain o= f providing with, cooking, and eating foods; =C2=A0those elements of the ch= ain should be made secured. Thus the "end users" eat what has bee= n provided with as cooked foods....

Regard,
<= div>Guntur Wiseno Putra

Pada Rabu, 20 Maret 2019, Guntur Wiseno Putr= a <gsenopu@gmail.com> menuli= s:
Dear All,

Do I miss= for something as I am new for this list:
If the document meant i= n the current discussion is:



=

Pada Rabu, 20 Maret 2019, Guntur Wiseno Putra <gsenopu@gmail.com> menulis:
Dear All,

May I be allo= wed to give an idea:

Should not we say that techno= logies --among which is the Internet-- live (as they are made possible by) = for a society? --That society emerges motives (such a configuration of the = historical, the economic, the political snd others of a society). --And, he= re the "end-users" is a part of the Internet environment, thus is= a moment of success of the Internet programme.


Regard,

Guntur Wiseno Putra


Pada Rabu= , 20 Maret 2019, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> menulis:
Re-sending with hopefully a better address.

<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">
---------- = Forwarded message ---------
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 19, 2019 = at 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: Finding the appropriate work stream for draft-n= ottingham-for-the-users
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: Jari Arkko <jari..arkko@piuha.net>, <architecture-discuss@iab.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>


Without responding to Eliot's point i= n detail, one comparison point would be the HTML Priority of Constituencies= :


"In case of conflict, consid= er users over authors over implementors over specifiers over theoretical purity. In other words costs or difficulties to the user should be given more weight than costs to authors; which in turn should be given more weight than costs to implementors; which shoul= d be given more weight than costs to authors of the spec itself, which should be given more weight than those proposing changes for theoretical reasons alone. Of course, it is preferred to make things better for multiple constituencies at once."

I've= certainly found this to be a useful framing of design principles that help= s one reason about alternative designs. Perhaps that's one direction to= take this document.

-Ekr

=

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 3:22 AM Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
Hi Jari,

First, thanks to Mark for writing a provocative draft worthy of his role = on the IAB.

TL;DR I do not believe this document a= sks the right question, and further believe that there may be a better appr= oach to take.

On 19 Mar 2= 019, at 09:06, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:

My pers= onal opinion is that it would be useful for the IETF to state its preferenc= e to benefit the users, and to begin with, consider the impacts its technol= ogy may have on the various relationships among users, and various other pl= ayers. Of course, in many cases we are already doing this (and debating it!= ), but there=E2=80=99s obviously always room for improvement.

I do t= hink though that if the document goes forward, it would be beneficial to re= think the examples. =E2=80=9CNetwork operators and equipment vendors=E2=80= =9D as the threat picture=E2=80=A6 doesn=E2=80=99t sound to me like 2019 at= all, with all the technology and deployment changes we=E2=80=99ve had in t= he last few years. How about =E2=80=9Clarge content and application provide= rs=E2=80=9D? This seems like a major issue in today=E2=80=99s Internet.
=


You raise an importa= nt point.=C2=A0 More broadly, I would find it strange that someone particip= ating here believes that he or she is not=C2=A0acting in the interes= ts of the end users. =C2=A0
  • Network operators believe the= y are acting in the interests of end users =C2=A0by intercepting threats to= them. =C2=A0
  • Browser developers believe they are operating in the = interests of end users when they protect the privacy of communications. =C2= =A0
  • Social network providers believe they are operating in the inte= rests of end users by providing them fora in which to congregate. =C2=A0
  • Content providers believe they are operating in the interests of end = users by providing them meaningful and sometimes entertaining content. =C2= =A0
  • Cloud providers believe they are operating in the interests of = end users by supporting applications. =C2=A0
  • Firewall vendors belie= ve they are operating in the interests of end users even by eavesdropping o= n corporate communications to prevent embezzlement. =C2=A0
  • Some civ= il society organizations believe they are operating in the interests of end= users by preventing unwarranted and undetected surveillance by governments= . =C2=A0
  • Governments believe they are operating in the interests of= end users by identifying risks to their citizens.
The = document, however, is framed as though only a handful of these groups are o= perating in the interest of end users.=C2=A0 And that=C2=A0is proble= matic, because it will lead to incessant argument over just who represents = 7 billion people (did I mention the UN above?) with unpredictable and poten= tially perverse consequences.

This leads to a ques= tion: what behavior do we actively want to change?=C2=A0 What outcome went = wrong that we would want to correct?=C2=A0 Like you, Jari, I am hard presse= d to find an applicable example, which is why I suspect the Examples sectio= n is so paltry.=C2=A0 Put another way, what would be the practical ramifica= tions of adopting this work as a BCP?

Having a food fight= over who best represents the user isn=E2=80=99t productive.=C2=A0 We all t= hink we do.=C2=A0 And we all want to leave the world better than we found i= t.=C2=A0 I would, therefore, propose that we frame our purpose accordingly,= borrowing from the work of others, such as Hippocrates and Maimonides.=C2= =A0 Practitioners of all sorts have ethics policies, including =C2=A0ISOC a= nd the IEEE.=C2=A0 Maybe what we really want is a promise from participants= that they work for the betterment of society, however they understand that= to mean, and that the higher they rise in leadership at the IETF, the more= we will expect them to demonstrate having met that goal.

If we are to take th= is up at all, and I am not opposed to doing so, I would suggest that we fir= st be able to agree on the goal, that we have some understanding of what me= chanism we want to use to achieve that goal, and that we understand the ram= ifications of our choices.

The worst possible world is one in which we short cir= cuit difficult decisions because we have enacted a policy that favors one v= iew of users over another without regard to the consequences.=C2=A0 Applyin= g a normative imprimatur to this work that an IETF BCP carries would theref= ore be premature.

Eliot

--000000000000c0b86305847f32d5--