Subject: Re: [arch-d] Comments on draft-nottingham-avoiding-internet-centralization-00

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2022 11:19:03 +1100

Hi SM,

Thanks for the feedback; responses below.

> On 17 Dec 2021, at 3:50 pm, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> I have a few comments about draft-nottingham-avoiding-internet-centralization-00.  The draft is well-written.  However, there is some work to be done to tease out the ideas and weed out ideas which might be a distraction from the topic.
> 
> Section 2 states that "Centralization is undesirable in the design of Internet protocols for many reasons ..."  Section 3 argues that centralization is necessary to have a "single source of truth".  Does the list of "deleterious effects" in Section 2 apply to Section 3?

Potentially, if those effects are not mitigated.

> The SMTP example in Section 4 lumps addressing and message transport together.   The addressing is somebody else's problem; in this case DNS.  There is a discussion about that in RFC 882.

The draft points SMTP's reliance on DNS to handle naming pretty explicitly...

> What does multi-stakeholder bodies (Section 4.2) have to do with avoiding centralization?

As the draft tries to explain, it's one way to (attempt to) mitigate the ill effects of a necessarily centralised function. 

> The draft argues that the IETF is an example of multi-stakeholderism.  That is debatable.  The participation model used by the IETF is based on individualism.  The individuals do not have to identify themselves as belonging to a constituency.

I don't see how a norm of individual participation affects stakeholders' ability to get involved. While some multi-stakeholder organisations have rigidly defined and labeled constituencies, that's not a defining factor of multistakeholderism.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/