Subject: [arch-d] FYI: "ISOC" "New IP" "discussion" "paper"

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 21:06:08 +0200

Dear architecture-discuss, Olaf

I hope this forward is beneficial to the IETF architecture-discussion mailing list.

- Even though the the appended email claims that this was widely cross-posted,
  i did NOT see it in any of the many IETF mailing lists i am subscribed to.

- I could not find any actual public place (mailing list) for an open
  discussion about he topic of the paper:

- [email-masked] does not allow Global ISOC members to
  join by themselves, nor do i know if it would welcome discussion.
  In fact it is not even listed on the set of pubic ISOC mailing lists.
  So the nature of this mailing list seems to be secret to me.

- [email-masked] does seem to be just an alias for
  the authors. Unfortunately, the set of recipient seems to be secret,
  so i would not know the extend of people who will receive my emails,
  no would i be able to know about any other feedback (no public archive
  of the alias). If there was for example any US EAR entity listed
  recipient on that private mailing list alias, i could be violating
  US export regulations by sending technical detail explanations to 
  such a non-public alias.

>From these few data points, i find the proposed communication mechanisms
about that paper somewhat confusing, if not concerning, but maybe i do
misunderstand how ISOC is or is not an open communtiy like i have experienced
IETF to be.

Cheers
    Toerless

https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2020/discussion-paper-an-analysis-of-the-new-ip-proposal-to-the-itu-t/

> On April 28, 2020 at 2:33:06 AM, Olaf Kolkman via InternetPolicy ([email-masked]) wrote:
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> With the usual cross-post apologies[*].
> 
> In the run up to the ITU World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly (WTSA-20) later this year there has been some discussion about a proposal called the “New IP”. It is positioned as a top-down architecture to solve a number of use cases that are currently been developed in the ITU-T’s Future Network 2030 Focus Group.
> 
> The Internet Society is carefully following the developments in the run-up to WTSA-20. We are trying to understand if and how the New IP works with the Internet as we know it, if it actually solves problems that cannot be solved in the Internet, and, if the ITU-T is developing standards, where other standards development organizations (SDOs) have change control.
> 
> In order to get a sense of the environment we commissioned a discussion paper, “An analysis of the ‘New IP’ proposal to the ITU-T.” The paper helps inform us and the broader community whilst the public debate around these proposals shapes up. It also aims to inform and shape the discussion from the Internet’s Society’s perspective. Eventually the debate around it will inform our position and the potential further evolution of the discussion paper itself. Note that the paper documents the Internet Society’s emerging opinion, but does not represent a final Internet Society position. Instead, we intend it as a means to gather information and insight from our community on the topic.
> 
> We welcome any feedback on “An analysis of the ‘New IP’ via the email address [email-masked]
> 
> —Olaf Kolkman
> 
> [*] This mail has been sent to various relevant mailing lists and featured as a blog on the Internet Society website.
> 
> Olaf M. Kolkman	
> Principal - Internet Technology, Policy, and Advocacy	
> Internet Society	Tweets as: @kolkman
> _______________________________________________ 
> To manage your Internet Society subscriptions 
> or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at 
> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login 
> and go to the Preferences tab within your profile. 
> - 
> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 08:34:53 +1200

Hi Toerless,

On one point only:

>   [email-masked] does not allow Global ISOC members to

You can join but not in the normal way... you have to go through a
strange procedure in the Member's Portal or some such place, where I
believe it's called a "Community" or some such. Can't remember, but it
was very baroque.

I believe Andrew said that there is work underway to change this.

However, I don't see any relevant discussion in the (members only)
archive. Typical subjects recently:

on people not heard (was Re: Language reversion, and an idea)
OneWeb bankruptcy
Interview with Parminder on community ownership of data
Official de-chartering of the Internet Society Ireland Chapter
North-South issues in the Ditigal Economy
European Commission solicits feedback on GDPR's efficiency
Official de-chartering of the Internet Society Ireland Chapter

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 23:17:37 +0200

Thanks, Brian, inline

> believe it's called a "Community" or some such. Can't remember, but it

Yes, i tried to exhaust my options in there, but got nowhere,
this includes going to 

https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/internetpolicy/

and attempting to join via that unpublished link.

I don't mind baroque as long as its published, but published information
is wrong, and the fact that the list is not included in the published
list of ISOC lists makes me wonder if the list lists that are only
accessible to ISOC members is even published anywhere...

I did send emails to support.

> I believe Andrew said that there is work underway to change this.

I did have a bit of discussion about the possibility of
a list like "[email-masked], but was told in PM
that getting new mailing lists on elists.isoc.org is a
process competing with continental drift in speed.

Something like such a list would be a great option IMHO for
the ISOC society to participate on not only in discussions about
internet history but also its future.

> Official de-chartering of the Internet Society Ireland Chapter

Given how seemingly non-published internetpolicy mailing list is,
i wonder who is even subscribed to it. Not sure if it is possible
to figure that out.  I very much liked Jay Daleys reconfirmation
that IETF mailing list membership is of public nature. Not sure
what ISOC's policy is.

Cheers
    Toerless

-- 
---
[email-masked]

---

From: "Ian Peter" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 21:58:57 +0000

Toerless,

The internetpolicy list in question was dormant for decades, but came to 
life again a few months ago with a substantial discussion on the issues 
surrounding ISOC's proposed sale of Public Internet Registry (PIR) . 
It's fair to say a lot of this discussion was very critical of ISOC's 
position, sometimes quite undiplomatically so. Perhaps some restrictions 
were placed on new memberships in these circumstances? I do not know...

The "new IP" proposal was posted there a couple of days ago. To date it 
has not provoked much discussion, just a couple of comments equating 
this with the OSI battles 30 years ago. Perhaps more substantial comment 
will come in the near future.

Ian Peter

------ Original Message ------
From: "Toerless Eckert" <[email-masked]>
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Sent: 29/04/2020 7:17:37 AM
Subject: Re: [arch-d] FYI: "ISOC" "New IP" "discussion" "paper"

>Architecture-discuss mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 00:22:19 +0200

Thanks, Ian

As said in my mail, i think it would be appropriate to how i understood
the spirit of IETF/ISOC to have the ability for a public/open discussion
about the subject matter, so the non-public feedback channel and the
use of a lists where its unclear how to even join it is quite frustrating,
and it would be great if this could be fixed.

As said in response to Brian, maybe a better solution would be
to create some group like "internet-future" at the isoc mail server.

In any case, for a "discussion" paper as this one, it would be great to
point to an actual forum where the discussion can be had.

Cheers
    Toerless

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 09:58:57PM +0000, Ian Peter wrote:
> surrounding ISOC's proposed sale of Public Internet Registry (PIR) . It's
> fair to say a lot of this discussion was very critical of ISOC's position,
> sometimes quite undiplomatically so. Perhaps some restrictions were placed
> on new memberships in these circumstances? I do not know...
> 
> The "new IP" proposal was posted there a couple of days ago. To date it has
> not provoked much discussion, just a couple of comments equating this with
> the OSI battles 30 years ago. Perhaps more substantial comment will come in
> the near future.
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 28 Apr 2020 22:56:56 -0400

>  i did NOT see it in any of the many IETF mailing lists i am subscribed to.

To point out the obvious, there are a lot of mailing lists in the world other
than the IETF's.

>  discussion about he topic of the paper:

There has been some discussion on the internet policy list.

>  join by themselves, ...

That is false, although the cruddy software interface does not make it easy
to figure out how to subscribe.

* start at isoc.org, click Member login at the top, and log in with your member credentials

* click Edit my Profile near the upper center of the window

* click the Preferences tab

* in EMAIL CONSENT AND GENERAL CHANNELS click the Edit button

* It should pop up a box in which you can check the lists you would
like to subscribe to, with the Internet Policy list at the bottom.
Check the box, also Receive Emails at the top, then Save.

You do not have to tell me that this is the worst mailing list
subscription interface on the face of the planet.  We know.
Unfortunately it is part of a larger member management system and
fixing this bit is annoyingly hard.

---

From: "Olaf Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 07:59:40 +0200

Hello Toerless,

TL;DR: mailinglist will be available shortly.

In general when the Internet Society develops a position we have a PDP 
process by which we ask our community for feedback using a documented 
process (see 
https://www.internetsociety.org/about-internet-society/policy-development-process/).

For this particular topic we are sill shaping our perspective and view 
and have commissioned this discussion paper. See this paper as public 
version of our preliminary analysis - I hope that the disclaimer on the 
paper is clear about that.

The mail alias in the draft is intended to contact the author and editor 
- it is equal to send a mail to Chip or myself and is a way to provide 
us - ISOC staff - feedback. It is not a substitute for public discussion 
and intended as a convenience alias. If you feel uncomfortable using 
that address and you want to reach any of the authors, feel free to 
reach out to me directly.

As for open discussion.

We will be tracking the (ISOC) lists on which we have announced the 
paper. A default place where members can discuss issues is the Open 
Forum on the Internet Societies Connect platform. Those are all ISOC 
specific, require membership, and are our default channels for 
communication with our membership. For this sort of discussion paper 
I’d agree a broader discussion makes sense. Therefore, we are setting 
up a mailing list which is open for membership and will be publicly 
archived - As soon as its there, I will update the paper and the blog 
with a pointer to its address, and post a follow-up here.

Finally, Arch-D list is not our list and I considered our paper (only 
slightly) off topic. So, I did not post it here. That said, and without 
suggesting that the paper should be discussed here, we (me and my 
colleagues) are following the discussions on this list. The discourse 
here clearly informs us.

I hope this helps, looking forward for substantive feedback once the 
list is there.

—Olaf

On 28 Apr 2020, at 21:06, Toerless Eckert wrote:

>> In the run up to the ITU World Telecommunication Standardization 
>> Assembly (WTSA-20) later this year there has been some discussion 
>> about a proposal called the â?oNew IPâ?. It is positioned as a 
>> top-down architecture to solve a number of use cases that are 
>> currently been developed in the ITU-Tâ?Ts Future Network 2030 Focus 
>> Group.
>>
>> The Internet Society is carefully following the developments in the 
>> run-up to WTSA-20. We are trying to understand if and how the New IP 
>> works with the Internet as we know it, if it actually solves problems 
>> that cannot be solved in the Internet, and, if the ITU-T is 
>> developing standards, where other standards development organizations 
>> (SDOs) have change control.
>>
>> In order to get a sense of the environment we commissioned a 
>> discussion paper, â?oAn analysis of the â?~New IPâ?T proposal to 
>> the ITU-T.â? The paper helps inform us and the broader community 
>> whilst the public debate around these proposals shapes up. It also 
>> aims to inform and shape the discussion from the Internetâ?Ts 
>> Societyâ?Ts perspective. Eventually the debate around it will inform 
>> our position and the potential further evolution of the discussion 
>> paper itself. Note that the paper documents the Internet Societyâ?Ts 
>> emerging opinion, but does not represent a final Internet Society 
>> position. Instead, we intend it as a means to gather information and 
>> insight from our community on the topic.
>>
>> We welcome any feedback on â?oAn analysis of the â?~New IPâ?T via 
>> the email address [email-masked]
>>
>> â?"Olaf Kolkman
>>
>> [*] This mail has been sent to various relevant mailing lists and 
>> featured as a blog on the Internet Society website.
>>
>> Olaf M. Kolkman	
>> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: 
>> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/

---

From: "Olaf Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 17:53:53 +0200

On 29 Apr 2020, at 7:59, Olaf Kolkman wrote:

> As soon as its there, I will update the paper and the blog with a 
> pointer to its address, and post a follow-up here.

There it is: [email-masked]

The blog already refers to the list, the paper itself is being updated.

—Olaf

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Olaf M. Kolkman                                     Tweets as: @kolkman
Principal - Internet Technology, Policy, and Advocacy
Internet Society                        https://www.internetsociety.org
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

---

From: Andrew Campling <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 16:11:43 +0000

>That is false, although the cruddy software interface does not make it easy to figure out how to subscribe.
> * It should pop up a box in which you can check the lists you would like to subscribe to, with the Internet Policy list at the bottom.
> You do not have to tell me that this is the worst mailing list subscription interface on the face of the planet.  We know.
> Unfortunately it is part of a larger member management system and fixing this bit is annoyingly hard.

I note that a public, archived mailing list has now been established that is accessible to non-ISOC members.  It which can be joined via mailman at https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion-papers/.  Hopefully this will enable a more open, multi-stakeholder discussion to take place.

Andrew

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 19:38:51 +0200

> To point out the obvious, there are a lot of mailing lists in the world other

;-) Not on the planet i live on.
Kidding aside, my remark was primarily an explanation for forwarding to this list.

> Check the box, also Receive Emails at the top, then Save.

Indeed. Thanks a lot. I was mislead by the instructions here:

https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internetpolicy

And this one here doesn't accept isoc username/password:

https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internetpolicy

Maybe fix up those.

Also it would be good if those isoc lists could be listed here

https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo

even if that listing would just have to point to an info page
including the instructions you gave above.

> subscription interface on the face of the planet.  We know.

Nah, it's ok. Just the maze of URLS attempting you not to
find the right place is in need of improvement.

> fixing this bit is annoyingly hard.

For someone coming from the IETF side and knowing mailman,
fixing up the mailman URLs above to show your correct
instructions should be all thats needed. No need to change
that member management backend.

Thanks for helping!

Cheers
    Toerless

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 17:40:46 +1200

Where to Discuss a New Internet?

https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/InterOmnesNovasRete.html

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

---

From: John Grant <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 12:23:04 +0100

> https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/InterOmnesNovasRete.html
In what way does the NIN press release show that ETSI has blundered? Is 
it referring to the expectation that NGP could take non-IP into IETF?

-- 
John Grant
Nine Tiles, Cambridge, England
+44 1223 862599 and +44 1223 511455
http://www.ninetiles.com

---

From: Andrew Campling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 13:49:11 +0000

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 23:22, Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]> wrote:

> In any case, for a "discussion" paper as this one, it would be great to point to an actual forum where the discussion can be had.

In addition to the public mailing list that ISOC has subsequently created (https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion-papers/), is there a suitable forum for discussion of the "New IP" proposal within the IETF (noting from earlier debate that the Architecture-discuss list is technically an IAB one)?  

I note that there has been some pushback about the ITU looking at this, however it's not clear to me that anyone else is looking seriously at longer-term development like this so it appears to have left a vacuum.  I could of course be mistaken in that, look forward to being corrected as appropriate.

Andrew

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 14:54:14 +0100

Hiya,

On 30/04/2020 14:49, Andrew Campling wrote:
> In addition to the public mailing list that ISOC has subsequently
> created
> (https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion-papers/), is
> there a suitable forum for discussion of the "New IP" proposal within
> the IETF (noting from earlier debate that the Architecture-discuss
> list is technically an IAB one)?
I'm confused. Why does it matter if arch-d is an IAB list?

Seems to me that this is a reasonable list for discussion
of Internet architecture. (Not such a good list to which to
send unsolicited meeting invites, but that was a different
issue:-)

S.

---

From: John Grant <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 15:53:13 +0100

> I note that there has been some pushback about the ITU looking at this, however it's not clear to me that anyone else is looking seriously at longer-term development like this so it appears to have…
Well, there is ETSI ISG NIN (see thread about 2 weeks ago). See 
https://www.etsi.org/technologies/non-ip-networking and sign up at 
https://portal.etsi.org/tb.aspx?tbid=887#/

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2020 08:23:54 +1200

On 01-May-20 01:54, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> of Internet architecture.

As I have argued in my recent rant, the IETF (which of course appoints
the IAB members) is probably the best venue we have. And the IAB's
job description includes A for Architecture. So yes, as long as we
don't imagine ourselves to have any power of decision.

     Brian