As well as providing some carefully worded definitions that are really
useful in discussions, it sets out a stance of the IETF against
massive commercial centralisation.
> Despite being designed and operated as a decentralized
network-of-networks, the Internet is continuously subjected to forces
that encourage centralization.
Practically the first words in any network course I teach these days
are to explain to students who think "The Internet" is Facebook and
Google what a catastrophe "Mainframe 2.0" really is.
> call into question what role architectural regulation -- in
particular, that performed by open standards bodies such as the IETF
-- should play in preventing, mitigating, and controlling Internet
centralization.
IETF rightfully challenges (a decade too late) what this deviation
from design principles really means, including the threat to its own
relevance.
> The primary audience for this document is the engineers who design
and standardize Internet protocols.
A problem here is that without a civics/ethics foundation contemporary
engineers may not understand the deeper nature of a protocol versus a
black-box platform. IETF may be moving into a new educational role to
explain why a protocol is more desirable.
I am still reading but so far I have not seen the key issue of
resilience (availability is mentioned) including the impact on
national infrastructure resilience.
> A problem here is that without a civics/ethics foundation contemporary engineers may not understand the deeper nature of a protocol versus a black-box platform. IETF may be moving into a new educational role to explain why a protocol is more desirable.
There is the Evolvability, Deployability, & Maintainability [0] working group that has some good documents that relate to that.
As well as providing some carefully worded definitions that are really useful in discussions, it sets out a stance of the IETF against massive commercial centralisation.
> Despite being designed and operated as a decentralized network-of-networks, the Internet is continuously subjected to forces that encourage centralization.
Practically the first words in any network course I teach these days are to explain to students who think "The Internet" is Facebook and Google what a catastrophe "Mainframe 2.0" really is.
> call into question what role architectural regulation -- in particular, that performed by open standards bodies such as the IETF -- should play in preventing, mitigating, and controlling Internet centralization.
IETF rightfully challenges (a decade too late) what this deviation from design principles really means, including the threat to its own relevance.
> The primary audience for this document is the engineers who design and standardize Internet protocols.
A problem here is that without a civics/ethics foundation contemporary engineers may not understand the deeper nature of a protocol versus a black-box platform. IETF may be moving into a new educational role to explain why a protocol is more desirable.
I am still reading but so far I have not seen the key issue of resilience (availability is mentioned) including the impact on national infrastructure resilience.