Hello Alex, Really agree on your views on "The Internet does no harm".
Sorry to make it confused by the term "Kernel". Actually I borrow this term from Linux but do not want to correlate that to Linux. I use this term because this item looks like the root/heart of any design for Internet, or like a guidance document from IAB, i.e., RFC 8890 The Internet is for End Users. Thus I would use "Principle/Shared Valued" in the beginning of this item instead of "kernel". While for "The Internet does no harm" itself, I'd like to explore more on the definition of "harm". A simple example of "harmful" can be regarded as "attack", just like RFC7258. For want comes into my mind, "harmful" can means more, like a design that contribute to network ossification, or a design with large attack surface, or a design with potentially negative social effect, like what RFC 2804 said. So should there be an abstract definition of what can be harmful to Internet, or shall we have a draft to do so? Just like RFC 8890? Thanks, Yihao Le 10/12/2021 ? 10:56, Jiayihao a ?crit : > Hi Dino, all, > > Based on a user point of view, I try to go through the thread and > summarize the features gathered. Please correct me if anything missing > or I get anything wrong. (Points like 6M mentioned by Fred are shaped > to better reflect the points from users.) > > (1) Always-On: be connected to the Internet, Anywhere, by Any links > (either cabled or radio), ALL THE TIME, and All automatically > (without any switch turning). (2) Transparency: be agnostic to the > network protocols (IP, Bluetooth, ZigBee, Thread, Airdrop, Airplay, or > any others), want an easy and straightforward to contact a > people/device without any knowledge of network issues like IP address, > and (3) Multi-homing: seamlessly multi-homing capability for the host. > (4) Mobility: seamless and lossless communications for moving nodes > (vehicle, satellites). (5) Security and Privacy: > security and privacy, omnidirectionally, incessantly (6) Performance: > satisfied (if not impeccable) reliability, availability, speed(shorter > paths/direct communications), enough bandwidth(10petabit/s for a > link), Efficient(less overlays/encapsulations), highly effective > (avoid address waste). (7) > Kernel: make sure the Internet does no harm. (8) Others: no worry > about MTU Thanks for listing the "Internet - no harm" point. But I did not see why is it called 'kernel'? I was thinking to make sure Internet does no harm in the linux kernel sense, yes, but among more other aspects. "Internet - no harm" point in the linux kernel would mean probably something to reduce the size of the Internet (IP) stack in the kernel, reduce its energy consumption, reduce the 'software bloat' of it. Is this the kernel you refer to? "Internet - no harm" point on a broader scale would mean to try to make sure aspects such as datacenter energy consumption (there were no such big datacenters prior to Internet; it can safely be assumed that these datacenters are created and needed by the Internet), human factors related to over-use of the Internet like professional emails during weekends and burnout, societal impacts digital divide like all-Internet-for-young and nothing-for-the-elderly or like the divide between countries with differing revenues per capita, social system divides like Internet ability in certain countries to be 'cut', various legislation's crime facilitated by the Internet, and more - are fed back into the design of the new Internet and make sure it does no harm. It is a little bit like in Health and medicine: first, make sure do no harm. When a surgeon opens someone's body, the first thing s/he must make sure is to do no harm (do not break some artery or vein, and just have a look to see what's wrong in the ill), even though the cut in the skin is already a little bit of harm. Alex _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
