[discuss] Transiting e-mails

[Michel Gauthier]

At 19:02 08/01/2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>M. Gauthier,
>
>On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 04:41:55PM +0100, Michel Gauthier wrote:
>
> > IAB did just its part: to protect a robust status-quo.
>
>Speaking as an IAB member but not for the IAB, I find your claim 
>both false and insulting.

???

I do not understand what you find false and insulting.

There are two billion people who can testify that the IAB has 
established a robust end to end "model and a set of rules that allow 
data networks of widely varying internal operation to be 
interconnected, permitting users to access remote resources and 
intercomputer communication across the connected networks".

In doing so it has permited the internal technology of a data network 
to be optimized for local operation but also permited locally 
optimized nets to be readily interconnected into an organized 
catenet. The first motivation of the IEN 48 ARPA project.

>If you are prepared to back up that claim with even a little shred 
>of evidence and in the face of the plenary discussion we sponsored 
>in Vancouver, I would like to hear it.

I do not know what is the plenary discussion you sponsored in 
Vancouver. I only see that so far the IAB has not considered that its 
mission was to allow new networking technologies to be introduced 
into the existing internet system while remaining functionally 
compatible with their own foreign systems, along the second 
motivation of the IEN 48 ARPA Project. For example for a technology 
permitting, for a example, a fully automated network cyber-defense as 
still expected by 2014 DARPA through their CGC project and grassroots users.

>Otherwise, I ask you to withdraw your remark.

My remark only aknowledges the evaluation made and the explanation 
given by the IAB in RFC 3869, Leslie Daigle, now with ISOC, being its 
Chair, the Internet R&D could not be more dynamic. This evalutation 
is clear and far more negative than mine:

The judgement is (principal thesis of the RFC) "that if commercial 
funding is the main source of funding for future Internet research, 
the future of the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble.  In 
addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding 
source can also affect the content of the research, for example, 
towards or against the development of open standards, or taking 
varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols 
on the other traffic on the Internet."

The explanation given is as follows:

- "The result of reduced U.S. Government funding and profit-focused, 
low-risk, short-term industry funding has been a decline in 
higher-   risk but more innovative research activities.  Industry has 
also been less interested in research to evolve the overall 
Internet   architecture, because such work does not translate into a 
competitive advantage for the firm funding such work"

- "The IAB believes that it would be helpful for governments and 
other non-commercial sponsors to increase their funding of both basic 
research and applied research relating to the Internet, and to 
sustain these funding levels going forward."

My intent was just a dignosis. Not a controversy, not even an 
explanation. However I can add that:

- "Lynn and the 11 CEOs" have initiated a strategy (OpenStand) to 
correct this situation in removing the definition of what a "better 
internet" is (cf. RFC 3935) by the IAB and accepted that this 
depended from the market economy and of the technology development.
- DARPA has initiated a competition to secure the internet, the IAB 
and IETF can enter en win the M$ 2 prize.
- a concerted international effort to enhanced the internet 
technology on a politically acceptable equal footing has been 
engaged, that is co-sponsored by ICANN, IAB, IETF,W3C, ISOC and the 
RIRs, with one member of the BRICS.

Dear Andrew, I am a peacefull professional. I am certainly used to 
over reactions. They usually are ways to hide failures. In this case 
there is no failure. The IAB has done its job. Some expected more, or 
are upset because they have been prevented to do more.

I you said elsewhere no one is perfect and one learns over time.

My evaluation of the situation is that IAB/IETF covered the end to 
end. The question is the fringe to fringe. Everyone think this is not 
the IAB/IETF cup of tea, however some think they could have helped 
supporting it as the efforts by "Lynn and the 11 CEOs" before, while 
and after Snowdenia might do it.

Friendly
MG