Le 15/12/2021 à 04:40, Jiayihao a écrit :
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".
I think using principles is a good direction.
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 my part, I think that the stance that RFC7258 takes - consider the
passive monitoring to be an attack on the Internet, in a same manner
that an attack is considered that an active attacker like perpetrating a
break into a system across the Internet - is a stretch.
I think fundamentally it is impossible to have an open Internet and at
the same time make monitoring impossible. That is a problem. The RFC
does not solve it. It simply hides itself from that aspect.
There are other ways to try to alleviate the problem of bad things
happening on an open Internet.
For want comes into my mind, "harmful" can means more, like a design
that contribute to network ossification,
There is harm indeed in allowing the network to ossify. That harm
should be avoided somehow.
or a design with large attack surface,
A large attack surface is related to the fact that all IP addresses are
reachable from all other IP addresses?
or a design with potentially negative social effect,
There are a few things here.
In some societies the Internet is simply too expensive for its citizens
to benefit from it. There, the harm is in the cost. The cost of the
Internet should be reduced.
In some societies the Internet is a tool used to affect certain aspects
of the society. There the harm is in the Internet tool to affect the
society. In a sense, the society is _controlled_ altogether via the
Internet. Some people look at Internet and think it is Internet,
whereas other people look at Internet and think it is another Internet.
That is a harm that should be avoided. That is a confusion that should
be avoided.
In some societies the Internet is too much used daily by too many
people, leading in some cases to harm. The harm 'burnout' should be
avoided.
In some societies the Internet is embraced too much by the younger,
creating a divide from the older. The harm is that the older are set
apart.
I think there are many other harms related to Internet and society as a
whole, such as energy consumption and harms related to only-one-Earth.
like what RFC 2804 said.
RFC 2804 about 'wire tapping' - I did not know it.
There are things in it to which I could agree, but we could also compare
to deployment.
Whenever 'encryption' is suggested as a tool, one should admit also that
tool is possible in some places and legally impossible in some other
places. Mention that some places encryption tools are cleartext when
looked at from other places.
Or to mention that the use of encryption does help the privacy of the
end user but does also protect the trouble makers. In these cases, some
alleviation mechanisms include to make face a trouble maker to a privacy
lover and see what comes out of it.
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?
I think there could indeed be an abstract definition of what is harmful
to the Internet, but also about how the Internet could represent a
certain harm, or not.
I think we should escape from a mindset that says that Internet can only
be good - and is the only way forward. Wherever the Internet moves us
away from our humanity abilities then that is harmful. Wherever
Internet expands our humanity abilities then that should be prolonged.
I did not know RFC8890 "The Internet is for End Users" and it seems
interesting. I will read it!
Alex
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
