Hi Dino, Many thanks for the reply. Let me tie this back to my question regarding the draft: would you think it being a useful exercise to link the extensions described in the GA draft with those desired features from a user perspective? Would you be able/willing/happy to contribute to this?
More inline. Best, Dirk -----Original Message----- From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farina...@gmail.com] Sent: 01 December 2021 23:18 To: Dirk Trossen <dirk.tros...@huawei.com> Cc: int-area@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Int-area] Side meeting follow-up: What exact features do we want from the Internet? Here's my single feature request the network layer should provide: (1) I want to be connected ALL THE TIME, I want my computer to use all its links, either cabled or radio, ALL THE TIME. (2) I do not want to turn on and off wifi to get my device/computer to connect when it is currently not connected. The network layer should do all this for me. (3) I want it easy for people to find me (my IP address), so I don't want multiple addresses from the user level. I want one device ID, EID, host address, whatever you want to call it. I want you to "ping <dino's-computer>". Yes, I want host multi-homing and mobility. And I want it to work seamlessly. [DOT] As a user, do I *really* care about "my computer"? What does my computer signify? I have a number of those (computers), I have diversity in that certain devices do certain things (and certain things they don't) in terms of things I may care about. ICN asked that question many years ago: is the WHERE that matters or the WHAT? Do I want my computer to sit at the endpoint of communication or my service (or information), meaning does network layer communication identify the computer or its computational element (which may be replicated in a number of network locations)? [DOT] DNS+IP may be the quick technical answer to my last question but that brings me to another user perspective, namely that of constraints to the basic idea of exposing my services/information to the network. I may want constraints on availability (which may lead to "ALL THE TIME" being connected, or not), timing, dynamicity, privacy, security, but also efficiency (since I may care about costs but I may also care about "greenness" of the communication). Those constraints may be quite different for different users (my mother does not care about ALL THE TIME at all, but cares about receiving information on tablet and mobile device at the same time, while using her networked desktop for nothing messaging related at all) but also for different services. [DOT] I think Fred's "6Ms" of networking come into play when answering the constraint-based user requirements from a technical standpoint. Speaking as a user, [DOT] Trying to answer as one. Dino > On Dec 1, 2021, at 12:52 AM, Dirk Trossen > <dirk.trossen=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Dear all, > > Many thanks for those participating in the side meeting on Internet > addressing during the IETF 112 week. As suggested during the meeting, we want > to take various points of discussion during the meeting onto the mailing list > to continue discussion here on possible ways forward. > > Specifically, we wanted to come back on the issue that a larger architectural > discussion may be needed, a point that we make towards the end of the GA > draft > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jia-intarea-internet-addressing-gap-analysis/), > but which was also core to Dirk K’s main point that only such architecture > discussion may lead to possibly needed changes to addressing. We will be > looking into such possibly larger discussion along different possible avenues. > > For our discussion here on the INT area list, we found Dino’s related > suggestion particularly useful in that we may need a discussion on what we > (as users) may want from a network. We feel that our current GA draft may > contribute to this question by observing that the many extensions to Internet > addressing that we have gathered so far may be seen as an expression of a > desired feature that those proposing the extension may want to see from the > network. Hence, in addition to positioning those extensions as identified > gaps to Internet addressing, we may want to formulate those extensions as > desired features towards an extended Internet system, not just addressing; > this can be done through suitably extending the GA draft with another section. > > Why is this useful? We think that such view provides an observational input > into the question that Dino suggests to answer, which in turn links to the > larger architectural discussion that Dirk K suggests to have. While the > overall architectural discussion may (and likely will) touch on more than > ‘just’ addressing, we as a community may contribute to the discussion by > rationalizing the work that has been done in this space. > > We would like to solicit thoughts on this proposed way forward as concrete > steps for the community here on the list. Also, anybody wanting to provide > concrete input and contribution to this proposed revision of the draft is > more than welcome. > > Best, > > Dirk > (on behalf of the co-authors) > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
