From nobody Mon Oct 2 02:59:30 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: privsec-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: privsec-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A032134555; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 02:59:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bq4d1N_XWHww; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 02:59:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-x235.google.com (mail-yw0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 446BE126DD9; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 02:59:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yw0-x235.google.com with SMTP id r85so3310197ywg.1; Mon, 02 Oct 2017 02:59:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=aD+z7Y3m6ODJ2hlSN02lllva9fJAetwhqupQVn1Ln9w=; b=skYAxPVoUVLWB37Rd10PJLrtJ1epD9do69JypWph8k8gawvl/vgL7B5bZxhE0vSAjX bLK3fbxYCzLuCWjB7iW+F8pclM3tM4zKsFY4QhC5F1Qc651Xig8tAkMgvW4Hbr/FGiY2 y6A2L6xDz1Y8uUSoROPo0Fg8JDgytkPvARb/8k+H8fpSWL8P39nxlyYWG7y/nyko+1M8 sXhbKyMOkpgUf0OR55hkXfFvhIYyIZmHQzbyF0xscspD69UN1qveG44NIgFg0wffxbGg eSZhEy36w+6pYFrYtFX4HiRjxNRyLlyMOJkZMFjkzggCtiBHm5JnFjSim0UpkciWVz9s YIzw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=aD+z7Y3m6ODJ2hlSN02lllva9fJAetwhqupQVn1Ln9w=; b=h+WykQsuICynmz0gA09ajOar70MPcL85aQcIy9tP376Fj/FgKWNs69EgBNWOTRXhJ/ d5fLTwepE70yt5D0HTqncuqmOrSlPNsk7PUSvbULh6FphIh7zZy0aYTnR9pOqVqA8O2y DlygLJ445PYJJU4gZEW0NeQ2LoNImBY7kAWnRsaD6EA/QPmOm02jLUeywoTTjfZWMZMQ sSAMVJjo9UldPrdzDiBFvJWohcubLsfML0Ys9SXFqFG3dRV5FvVaGyrV+e2APxSdLKUe 0FJKzPexH34Ht4LSHbdFvLAFvbRJHT7tMwc/IW0pqpAKW+ljkCBJF7l2Lv4ceAP9vfoK NB/A== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUhltOCf1EWApQktaPab6WVfJlS/UCW/f3Vd/SmGpgApwZKzzaNK rrgQ4I06YmwV3oVbyf0lHAhOpnhyo380DDfYQSpRQQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QAhIQ6NHtoF2ttA4B2phOJPJeFPt6+dAUIDlux3RAX2LoB+ZfX2QXgG+5VNjn50HD4JR6G85qNuMiZ1U1adx3s= X-Received: by 10.37.1.197 with SMTP id 188mr12612189ybb.419.1506938348099; Mon, 02 Oct 2017 02:59:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.79.86 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 02:59:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.37.79.86 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 02:59:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <3F737F0E-9834-4469-9DB6-5EE392E96C2C@piuha.net> From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 04:59:07 -0500 Message-ID: To: Jari Arkko Cc: IANA Strategy , Stackevo , tech-plenary@iab.org, privsec-discuss@iab.org, IAB Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113cb018efddb2055a8d6c92" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Privsec-discuss] [Stackevo] Consolidation X-BeenThere: privsec-discuss@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Privacy and Security Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 09:59:11 -0000 --001a113cb018efddb2055a8d6c92 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Jari, One point, that you didn't ask for feedback about ... On Sep 29, 2017 05:00, "Jari Arkko" wrote: In the summer, the IAB briefly discussed the consolidation trends around the Internet. Consolidation may take many different forms, for instance in terms of traffic flows becoming more focused on large content providers; consolidation in the ISP industry; drive towards fewer but more popular operating systems or platforms; consolidation in the DNS or CDN industry; dominance of popular applications and types of accounts users have; limited sources for applications; and so on. We all probably recognise at least some forms of these trends. In general, some of these changes are a part of the Internet becoming globally commercial, the best solutions winning market share. But there are of course some concerns as well, starting from the effect few monocultures may have on security issues. Or to ensure openness, and the ability to ensure that innovation continues to generate new, better approaches in the Internet. But it is worth distinguishing architecural issues from marketplace problems. Obviously, much of this space is outside the scope of the IAB and more in the area of competition policies and economics. But there may be questions for the IAB as well, whether there=E2=80=99s something that we sh= ould understand better, or perhaps document. I would have agreed with what you said here before the IRTF added GAIA and HRPC, but given that those topics are now in scope for the IRTF that you folks on the IAB have oversight responsibility for, "competition policies and economics" doesn't seem as far out of scope to me now as it would have three years ago. That observation may not make any difference for your current investigation on the three questions you asked about, and could be either wrong or premature, but I thought it was reasonable to say that now. For instance, many of the moves towards consolidation are driven by economic factors rather than technical factors, but that it may be worth studying to see if there are any assumptions about the architecture of the Internet that no longer hold true. Similarly, there might be research questions about the state of the Internet that the research community should pay more attention to. For instance, research on Internet traffic flows and how those change wrt their diversity and/or concentration over time. As an example, is there a more recent version of what we saw in 2010 at the IETF 77 plenary: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/77/slides/ plenaryt-4.pdf? So, do the folks in the different programs have advice to the IAB in this topic? In particular: 1. Do you see architectural issues within your own field that relates to consolidation trends, and how those affect the Internet? It might be worth noting that our increased reliance on user-space transport protocols may be taking us in the opposite direction from the trends toward consolidation elsewhere for the internet. One doesn't have to control kernel TCP and SCRAP implementations for hosts with a large deployment footprint to make the Internet behave differently. See QUIC for a soon-to-be worked example (not the current chartered NewReno direction, but the first alternative congestion control scheme, which won't surprise me at all when it comes out) :-) 2. What potential new architectural structures might provide support to either fighting the consolidation trend, or accelerating it? 3. Are there research programs that you believe would be useful in this space, but are currently not being pursued? Which ones? Perhaps, but see my note about "competition policies and economics" above. Spencer Jari Arkko for the IAB _______________________________________________ Stackevo mailing list Stackevo@iab.org https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/stackevo --001a113cb018efddb2055a8d6c92 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi, Jari,

One point, that you didn't ask for feedback about ...

On Sep 29, 2017 05:00, &qu= ot;Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@= piuha.net> wrote:
<= div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word">

In the summer, the IAB briefly discussed= the consolidation trends around the Internet. Consolidation may take many = different forms, for instance in terms of traffic flows becoming more focus= ed on large content providers; consolidation in the ISP industry; drive tow= ards fewer but more popular operating systems or platforms; consolidation i= n the DNS or CDN industry; dominance of popular applications and types of a= ccounts users have; limited sources for applications; and so on.
=
We all probably recognise at least some forms of these trend= s. In general, some of these changes are a part of the Internet becoming gl= obally commercial, the best solutions winning market share. But there are o= f course some concerns as well, starting from the effect few monocultures m= ay have on security issues. Or to ensure openness, and the ability to ensur= e that innovation continues to generate new, better approaches in the Inter= net.=C2=A0

But it is worth distinguishing architec= ural issues from marketplace problems. Obviously, much of this space is out= side the scope of the IAB and more in the area of competition policies and = economics. But there may be questions for the IAB as well, whether there=E2= =80=99s something that we should understand better, or perhaps document.=C2= =A0

I would have agr= eed with what you said here before the IRTF added GAIA and HRPC, but given = that those topics are now in scope for the IRTF that you folks on the IAB h= ave oversight responsibility for, "competition policies and economics&= quot; doesn't seem as far out of scope to me now as it would have three= years ago.

That observa= tion may not make any difference for your current investigation on the thre= e questions you asked about, and could be either wrong or premature, but I = thought it was reasonable to say that now.

For instance,=C2=A0many of the moves toward= s consolidation are driven by economic factors rather than technical factor= s, but that it may be worth studying to see if there are any assumptions ab= out the architecture of the Internet that no longer hold true. Similarly, t= here might be research questions=C2=A0about the state of the Internet that = the research community should pay more attention to.=C2=A0For instance, res= earch on Internet traffic flows and how those change wrt their diversity an= d/or concentration over time. As an example, is there a more recent version= of what we saw in 2010 at the IETF 77 plenary:=C2=A0https://= www.ietf.org/proceedings/77/slides/plenaryt-4.pdf?

So, do th= e folks in the different programs have advice to the IAB in this topic? In = particular:

1. Do you see architectural issues within your own fiel= d that relates to consolidation trends, and how those affect the Internet?<= /div>

It might be wo= rth noting that our increased reliance on user-space transport protocols ma= y be taking us in the opposite direction from the trends toward consolidati= on elsewhere for the internet.

One doesn't have to control kernel TCP and SCRAP implementations= for hosts with a large deployment footprint to make the Internet behave di= fferently. See QUIC for a soon-to-be worked example (not the current charte= red NewReno direction, but the first alternative congestion control scheme,= which won't surprise me at all when it comes out) :-)

=
2. What potential new architectural structures might provide=C2=A0support = to either fighting the consolidation trend, or accelerating it?
<= br>
3. Are there research programs that you believe would be usef= ul in this space, but are currently not being pursued? Which ones?

Perhaps, but see my no= te about "competition policies and economics" above.

Spencer
<= div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word">

Jari Arkko for the IAB

_______________________________________________
Stackevo mailing list
Stackevo@iab.org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/stackevo<= br>

--001a113cb018efddb2055a8d6c92-- From nobody Mon Oct 2 03:59:59 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: privsec-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: privsec-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF2C132199; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 03:59:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A3PkPXmCGHiV; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 03:59:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 612D3134593; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 03:59:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8693; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1506941989; x=1508151589; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=wmAT+4j8a2bAkV+oNgSVFm1XkTkMBSSHbBv06Wa1u4Y=; b=DntIq8EgcftCLUaFKhIu230/45fMNHIKLIsvM/8mvgQkCx8Vesy0AEKw 1nVg9u/QmjPtViRoSIa+r2O0VvVhdXsG8swv9L++byo1q/2gpI2ccIni6 By+Uwf52Lqw/d2V/pg8nt049/IQwR7OLQ6mKcUYvGB/qSv6o38ipO4nUH c=; X-Files: signature.asc : 481 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DuAQA2G9JZ/xbLJq1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBhS+EIIsTkEIikG6HUAcDhTsChQIUAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFGAEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?CASNWEAsYKgICVwYBDAgBAYokCKRggicniw8BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEOD4MthWgLgnKIF4JhAQSKHpcUhDyCIY4Ii12HLJVUgTk2IYEOMiEIHRWHaD6?= =?us-ascii?q?JcQEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,469,1500940800"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="656151722" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Oct 2017 10:59:43 +0000 Received: from [10.61.238.204] ([10.61.238.204]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v92Axhpc002385; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 10:59:43 GMT To: Jari Arkko , IANA Strategy , Stackevo , tech-plenary@iab.org, privsec-discuss@iab.org Cc: IAB References: <3F737F0E-9834-4469-9DB6-5EE392E96C2C@piuha.net> From: Eliot Lear Message-ID: <2f8d2c50-02f4-5732-6035-0c7daff442c0@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 12:59:42 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="s0248ArQtsB0BP6pQcEihlwlAuFe6fwEd" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Privsec-discuss] [Stackevo] Consolidation X-BeenThere: privsec-discuss@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Privacy and Security Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 10:59:52 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --s0248ArQtsB0BP6pQcEihlwlAuFe6fwEd Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="d03CrqseJ7tmpcucQtm4IIGbFaM1Adste"; protected-headers="v1" From: Eliot Lear To: Jari Arkko , IANA Strategy , Stackevo , tech-plenary@iab.org, privsec-discuss@iab.org Cc: IAB Message-ID: <2f8d2c50-02f4-5732-6035-0c7daff442c0@cisco.com> Subject: Re: [Stackevo] Consolidation References: <3F737F0E-9834-4469-9DB6-5EE392E96C2C@piuha.net> In-Reply-To: --d03CrqseJ7tmpcucQtm4IIGbFaM1Adste Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------72D3FC0064527E1BF4767D2B" Content-Language: en-US This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------72D3FC0064527E1BF4767D2B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Jari, On 9/29/17 12:00 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: > > So, do the folks in the different programs have advice to the IAB in > this topic? In particular: > > 1. Do you see architectural issues within your own field that relates > to consolidation trends, and how those affect the Internet? In the context of where I'm working (IoT security), every chip manufacturer has their own platform/SOC, for instance, and add to that a few operating systems and a few extra frameworks on top of them, and, well, I'd say there's a consolidation somewhere in the future.=C2=A0 We a= re seeing some market consolidation, but it hasn't caused a technology consolidation (yet). > > 2. What potential new architectural structures might provide=C2=A0suppo= rt > to either fighting the consolidation trend, or accelerating it? The notion of trusted introduction is well established in PKI.=C2=A0 Howe= ver, what it means in the context of IoT is challenging.=C2=A0 For instance: R= FCs 7252 and 7925 make an implicit (?) assumption of access to the DNS when domain names are used.=C2=A0 That resolution mechanism may not be appropr= iate in all circumstances.=C2=A0 Perhaps ENAME will consider this aspect a bit= =2E > > 3. Are there research programs that you believe would be useful in > this space, but are currently not being pursued? Which ones? Nope.=C2=A0 T2TRG is a hopping party! Eliot --------------72D3FC0064527E1BF4767D2B Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Jari,

On 9/29/17 12:00 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:=

So, do the folks in the different programs have advice to the IAB in this topic? In particular:

1. Do you see architectural issues within your own field that relates to consolidation trends, and how those affect the Internet?

In the context of where I'm working (IoT security), every chip manufacturer has their own platform/SOC, for instance, and add to that a few operating systems and a few extra frameworks on top of them, and, well, I'd say there's a consolidation somewhere in the future.=C2=A0 We are seeing some market consolidation, but it hasn't caused a technology consolidation (yet).


2. What potential new architectural= structures might provide=C2=A0support to either fighting the consolidation trend, or accelerating it?

The notion of trusted introduction is well established in PKI.=C2=A0 However, what it means in the context of IoT is challenging.=C2=A0 Fo= r instance: RFCs 7252 and 7925 make an implicit (?) assumption of access to the DNS when domain names are used.=C2=A0 That resolution mechanism may not be appropriate in all circumstances.=C2=A0 Perhaps ENAME will consider this aspect a bit.


3. Are there research programs that= you believe would be useful in this space, but are currently not being pursued? Which ones?

Nope.=C2=A0 T2TRG is a hopping party!

Eliot
--------------72D3FC0064527E1BF4767D2B-- --d03CrqseJ7tmpcucQtm4IIGbFaM1Adste-- --s0248ArQtsB0BP6pQcEihlwlAuFe6fwEd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZ0hweAAoJEIe2a0bZ0noz5sYH/0A51CGBlJVLDNdGUAGIhSj3 rPM6YZhjhhaEaREhq0/NpIG9SAAqJ3PBH7ltCZMcQtv4ZnT2Hjoc+PjmZRdwQazj ae0OMQbFsXJesVb4yIU9eAEbsk1p4N0W13QTwN8MtjX8TMVRxRrlY2N8pzO1vzxw ufDUW3jajb7dZZUmP2VZFcg2G8ezwvgrlyqFIYl9gdBd3Ix2GfUmil2qGhCVXkpI LuImSIZVYwA3DNAURTjC188LQxFerT4TidLF6KhCGv/lzGpAUXVPw3d3qxXL/2fR DeEzuldqj7xJo4zf5z4XPMNrYntBUfR1oEAPjwqYPwrBwyxTHbSM4b4Tck9FhBQ= =bAB0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --s0248ArQtsB0BP6pQcEihlwlAuFe6fwEd-- From nobody Mon Oct 2 04:21:40 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: privsec-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: privsec-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F16C1345BA; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 04:21:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9alkScYFg02C; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 04:21:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 345511345B9; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 04:21:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62E4B2CE21; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 14:21:26 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Afs21vxveALD; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 14:21:25 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:1829::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 639992CC9B; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 14:21:25 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) From: Jari Arkko In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 13:21:22 +0200 Cc: Stackevo , privsec-discuss@iab.org, tech-plenary@iab.org, IAB , IANA Strategy Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <3F737F0E-9834-4469-9DB6-5EE392E96C2C@piuha.net> To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Privsec-discuss] [Iana-strategy] [Stackevo] Consolidation X-BeenThere: privsec-discuss@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Privacy and Security Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 11:21:31 -0000 Good points, Spencer. Thanks. (Although for competition issues and policies, we can be interested in = this, and their effects, and research on the matter, but I=E2=80=99d = guess without asking a lawyer that there=E2=80=99s a limit how far we = should go in that space. Particularly for those of us who participate in = the market as commercial actors ourselves.) Jari From nobody Mon Oct 2 04:23:03 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: privsec-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: privsec-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF4951345BD; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 04:23:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8yIjgT1NEKK3; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 04:23:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDB601345BC; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 04:23:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16E7E2CE21; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 14:23:00 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KfrB_LC61h7k; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 14:22:59 +0300 (EEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:1829::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 350BA2CC9B; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 14:22:59 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) From: Jari Arkko In-Reply-To: <2f8d2c50-02f4-5732-6035-0c7daff442c0@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 13:22:56 +0200 Cc: IANA Strategy , Stackevo , tech-plenary@iab.org, privsec-discuss@iab.org, IAB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <203E0138-02F6-44F0-B8AE-1FD18AD2FA9F@piuha.net> References: <3F737F0E-9834-4469-9DB6-5EE392E96C2C@piuha.net> <2f8d2c50-02f4-5732-6035-0c7daff442c0@cisco.com> To: Eliot Lear X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Privsec-discuss] [Iana-strategy] [Stackevo] Consolidation X-BeenThere: privsec-discuss@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Privacy and Security Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 11:23:02 -0000 Good points from you Eliot as well, thanks again. > T2TRG is a hopping party! :-) Jari From nobody Mon Oct 2 14:53:29 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: privsec-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: privsec-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C2171348E9; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 14:53:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pnNnP6TkMsgp; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 14:53:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk0-x233.google.com (mail-qk0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBF811348E3; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 14:53:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk0-x233.google.com with SMTP id w63so6694848qkd.10; Mon, 02 Oct 2017 14:53:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Fa7SFH7DsZ43dMpinluSJnNKNg4QLreV1/Ie8BOI/H8=; b=EmSSFJtpl9V2TIJCsyA4fTdEmeZP/EiryTY4O4VD1xT7Fcdg6OFdidzAHV62j6uMlO TM00POrzWNp7NajMrQwCbu9e1UeDuiAOeSm53igHB9+mapQf3l8YESwI6ykSC6hFvzLJ on7FR9Hvcltz2Xja1JZSf8jGDKKy1j1uZ5HvbJBWEYufLz2sflwgJ2P6yRMwlCbHLiyF FVxCUmLX70WlnNsDhJEePEXtcb8a1lL+27ImO6HsDE2PDYagN2mxWFTwju/pCvATaDP+ CjzDqdV1kzDlZuTWe43YK6MjMzXQjOI7qjcdljMegpYfDZgBftqSrT30+t5wncQaC2A/ FYNw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Fa7SFH7DsZ43dMpinluSJnNKNg4QLreV1/Ie8BOI/H8=; b=XNu98CorPs6SM3xiNRqszh1lUTFoegCTKuGE9GgAEJ8PzyEgkFDw7DG9UIfWSJ1+OK 9uy/tHuWK/IOrjuB57aTTuMu/dZuPSmRJi0I4pxFQma7KucQ2dL+xcaFE+Fd7RP8jYYa 7AxI6cNz+pQ3Pd9Sfr5dCQxv2BbUMIw0f390bSZqLIGSxlMRAfvs0n11btYSav/OOvs7 JaaU8x6xbWkCyNakrtIFBBmHpQsxZSkpsY8aTv5I4aCFAuXPuVq/lR3RBrxHoIzSD+Vt 2uBpIq2Bm1Av677eDE8U461xN+6+BUcTxk30awQz6s5Yk+ltdGqZgnsRBc8xuVSJF1ag 0zcA== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXxPeeR2655sYHYuZt9CwxiqG0XOfMnz9ND6Jk06zHZqEiWJNKd jTe5VzzKEjT+DzPcW6f7jFMFh49G X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QBsBMCt64+cmo6af+Ts/mPKsXywzW1zh2UoBRw5Cl6QT5Io0Vtf+DZ06xNCdBdN8HH+cfEhBQ== X-Received: by 10.55.15.65 with SMTP id z62mr17598033qkg.2.1506981205676; Mon, 02 Oct 2017 14:53:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.19.37.102] ([72.246.0.14]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g131sm7406402qkb.15.2017.10.02.14.53.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Oct 2017 14:53:24 -0700 (PDT) From: "Aaron Falk" To: "Jari Arkko" Cc: "IANA Strategy" , Stackevo , tech-plenary@iab.org, privsec-discuss@iab.org, IAB Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 17:53:22 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <3F737F0E-9834-4469-9DB6-5EE392E96C2C@piuha.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; markup=markdown Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.7r5419) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Privsec-discuss] [Stackevo] Consolidation X-BeenThere: privsec-discuss@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Privacy and Security Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 21:53:28 -0000 Thanks for a provocative question! On 29 Sep 2017, at 6:00, Jari Arkko wrote: > So, do the folks in the different programs have advice to the IAB in > this topic? In particular: > > 1\. Do you see architectural issues within your own field that relates > to consolidation trends, and how those affect the Internet? > I’ll noodle on this but a question that comes to mind is since the Internet has consolidated nearly all other (public) data networks, I wonder how hard it would be to restore the major distributed systems services (e.g., electrical, BGP, DNS) service if some major subset of the network was unexpectedly brought offline. I worry we have hidden dependencies and the only way to expose them is to test a large scale reboot. > 2\. What potential new architectural structures might provide support > to either fighting the consolidation trend, or accelerating it? When I started at Akamai I was stunned at the volume of traffic generated by CDN servers as proxies for the major global content providers and the trend has continued. The large CDN footprint has found additional utility expanding the attach surface for clients. I believe both of these have been good for creating a sense of dependability and high performance in the minds of many Internet users and is a good thing. I wonder if the idea of large scale (commercial) proxies can be extended elsewhere. > > 3\. Are there research programs that you believe would be useful in > this space, but are currently not being pursued? Which ones? Thinking… —aaron From nobody Tue Oct 3 09:16:53 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: privsec-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: privsec-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0B5F134F12; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:16:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=dR7J/KhM; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=Ph+5L72P Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q1w_Rf5nbh8H; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:16:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47FB5134F01; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:16:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC315BEDAD; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 16:16:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1507047376; bh=VlLsBSDZ36iKfQWKjJLpT8D3gRoeAb6Tw5OrsJIa1nM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=dR7J/KhM/SiGXPwK4gaD16H1skHL2JKqtBOM6ubq1wlGfBOyN0fiqj7vwnag7pz1V JANAaAHQs0eVSrnLwnFhlvUE7C59j4Ks5/P6dm/ZtMPLz/lyR5V8lwqBo+JiV7m2A0 anCa5Fo0SVP7QlvgyAp0yE4YYgvq4yKVS+P9K0Xw= X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g9OudqrJyRAB; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 16:16:14 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 12:16:11 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1507047374; bh=VlLsBSDZ36iKfQWKjJLpT8D3gRoeAb6Tw5OrsJIa1nM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Ph+5L72PG7HCe3Wcw7B6sYl6DN+QaQ1RFIcrs0nVL1VBfkercDHQxIjDyiyO8B5uI MsM8NrQ4rOYPzZ8MbY0ko4h4LDI5dUiTO1aTMQKqDDnKv/YJHaCBhU31AmAfcvhSae jalrgAZuZXKSxRcZKBxbXWsPi61va2yB0jMLI5Ps= From: Andrew Sullivan To: Aaron Falk Cc: Jari Arkko , Stackevo , privsec-discuss@iab.org, tech-plenary@iab.org, IAB , IANA Strategy Message-ID: <20171003161610.3omoq6zdpcdcr45f@mx4.yitter.info> References: <3F737F0E-9834-4469-9DB6-5EE392E96C2C@piuha.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Privsec-discuss] [Iana-strategy] [Stackevo] Consolidation X-BeenThere: privsec-discuss@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Privacy and Security Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 16:16:51 -0000 Not sure which list we're using for this discussion, but maybe it should be on one list :) Anyway, On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 05:53:22PM -0400, Aaron Falk wrote: > it would be to restore the major distributed systems services (e.g., > electrical, BGP, DNS) service if some major subset of the network was > unexpectedly brought offline. One of the things that was clear at least by October 2016 is that the architectural assumptions for the DNS include distributed operation; but actual DNS operations for large web properties at least are concentrated in just a few providers. The resilience story for the Internet is accordingly quite a bit worse than it ought to be. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com