[discuss] What kind of "governance" do you want? (was Re: What is MSism?)

Mon Mar 31 11:15:14 UTC 2014

At 10:53 31/03/2014, S Moonesamy wrote:
>Hi Andrea,
>At 22:33 30-03-2014, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
>>How is this *not* "taking public policy into account when 
>>developing technical standards": 
>>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-perpass-attack/ ?
>>
>>(The fact that the document goes to great lengths to not take a 
>>position on the merits of what it defines "pervasive monitoring" 
>>does not, in my view, change the fact that such "pervasive 
>>monitoring" is, obviously, an issue of public policy of great 
>>importance, whatever opinion one might have about it).
>
>I read that draft.  I also read 
>https://twitter.com/mattblaze/status/438842253751365633 What is 
>obvious is that there are organizations which have been spying on 
>internet traffic.  The draft states a policy about considering that 
>fact when developing technical standards.
>
>It is a matter of what kind of security do you want.

This is an architectonic choice by the internet architecture that has 
to be corrected (BGP review was a WhiteHouse priority for US national 
security, in ... 2002).

A network is edges+nodes+gateways+interfaces. The internet has no 
interface so far: one has to decide if the end is an edge or a node 
and where is/how is designed the RFC 1958 fringe. The clear internet 
choice is to be a subnet (IEN 48) of an users' hosts network 
identified by their edge address: the fringe is therefore on the user 
side. This introduced the issues created by edge providers and 
surveillance, and as a consequence legal net-neutrality, security, 
and privacy issues. And incidently, spam.

The correction comes through: (1) Location/Identification 
differenciation, (2) presentation layer six at the fringe in an 
Intelligent Use Interface the network users can locate and indentify 
as such. This permits users to obtain a fully consistent (virtual) 
network, what the (physical) internet is not at this time.

jfc