[discuss] What kind of "governance" do you want? (was Re: What is MSism?)
jefsey at jefsey.com
Mon Mar 31 11:15:14 UTC 2014
At 10:53 31/03/2014, S Moonesamy wrote:
>At 22:33 30-03-2014, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
>>How is this *not* "taking public policy into account when
>>developing technical standards":
>>(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.
More information about the discuss