Re Question. Re Today is a remarkable day for the Internet!

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Bob Frankston" <Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com>
> Date: October 4, 2016 at 3:58:12 PM EDT
> To: dave () farber net, "     'ip'" <ip () listbox com>
> Cc: "'Karl Auerbach'" <karl () cavebear com>, "       David P. Reed" <dpreed () reed com>
> Subject: RE: [IP] Re Question. Re Today is a remarkable day for the Internet!
>
> The term "end-to-end" is confusing. For convenience I have a pointer to the Saltzer, Reed, and Clark paper at 
> http://rmf.vc/EndToEnd. The abstract is
>  
> This paper presents a design principle that helps guide placement of functions among the modules of a distributed 
> computer system. The principle, called the end-to-end argument, suggests that functions placed at low levels of a 
> system may be redundant or of little value when compared with the cost of providing them at that low level. Examples 
> discussed in the paper include bit error recovery, security using encryption, duplicate message suppression, recovery 
> from system crashes, and delivery acknowledgement. Low level mechanisms to support these functions are justified only 
> as performance enhancements.
>  
> As I read it, the key point is the lack of dependency upon intermediaries. As I wrote in 
> http://rmf.vc/PurposeVsDiscovery we have to discover what works. It is confusing because so much does work so we 
> attend to assume that they the applications we assumed were designed-in were actually discovered. The “intent” story 
> is classic hindsight reasoning. A good example is VoIP. Alon Cohen of VocalTec talks about how he discovered how well 
> VoIP turned out to work ; it worked far better than expected. What is confusing is that it worked as a byproduct of 
> the capacity created for the web.
>  
> The concept of a network implicitly assumes dependencies on intermediaries to assure packets get through with 
> promises such as low jitter. Mechanisms like the DNS and the IP address make us dependent upon intermediaries and 
> create the opportunity for boundaries. Rather than worrying who "owns" the Internet we should be working on 
> decentralizing it and moving beyond the heritage of networking as a service.
>  
>  
> From: Dave Farber [mailto:farber () gmail com]
> Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2016 14:30
> To: ip <ip () listbox com>
> Subject: [IP] Re Question. Re Today is a remarkable day for the Internet!
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Begin forwarded message:
> From: Karl Auerbach <mailto:karl () cavebear com>
> Date: October 2, 2016 at 2:14:43 PM EDT
> To: mailto:daveb () dslprime com
> Cc: mailto:dave () farber net, ip <mailto:ip () listbox com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] Re Question. Re Today is a remarkable day for the Internet!
> Apropos your notes on Dave Farber's IP list about ICANN, IANA, and the US Govt...
>  
> I agree with many of your observations about how ICANN and IANA and the US Gov't are affected by the motions and 
> opinions of nation states.
>  
> I don't agree that Ted Cruz is an idiot - I think he is a very dangerous and very smart person who is using the 
> ICANN/IANA thing, including this week's legal filings, to T-up the ball in preparation for accusations against the 
> next administration of the form "who is the man who lost the internet".  I fully anticipate the Cruz faction to 
> somehow use the Hillary C==>Ira Magaziner==>ICANN link after the inauguration.
>  
> But the larger issue is the continued unity of the net.  I believe that we are on the edge of a major shift in the 
> internet structure. Many fear this and use words with negative connotations, words like "fragmentation".  However, I 
> do not think that the shift I envision will be noticed by any but the most techie of users or be perceived as harmful.
>  
> Recently I wrote a note (an overly long note) about why I think that the internet will shift to a system less 
> universal but no less usable than the present one - to something that is more like an internet of internets.  The 
> starting premise is that the IP packet layer end-to-end principle is dead (or at least very weak).  But a new 
> end-to-end principle has risen at the application level.  And when our view shifts to the application level the glue 
> forces that resist lower-level fragmentation greatly diminish.
>  
> Anyway, you can take a look at the note, it is up at: http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear-blog/internet_quo_vadis/
>  
>        --karl--
> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/20210374-e5f5acac| 
> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; Your Subscription | 
> https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?&&post_id=20161002143016:41A55958-88CE-11E6-AA39-A4A8A42FF610
> http://www.listbox.com
>  



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20161004160910:66E79E5A-8A6E-11E6-936A-88A074A43A79
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com