--On Monday, 26 March, 2007 11:02 -0700 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip"
<pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Observation: Many IETF-ers have entries in Linked-In
>...
> Regret: We did not get out ahead of the curve with Instant
> Messaging. We should have done Jabber in 1995.
Depends on what you count and a whole series of questions about
timing and expectations. SEND/ SAML/ SOML provided a
network-based "instant message" facility by 1982. The TALK
protocol dates from very early version of U**x. And, until
people started considering it to be a security and privacy risk,
the finger protocol provided a fairly decent indication of
presence.
Observation: Serious work on issues in social networks and
influence dates back to work done in the mid-1950s (although the
key papers were largely circulated semi-privately for many years
thereafter). In much the same way that it can be argued that
the web has yet to catch up with some of the ideas about
hypertext expressed in the Bush paper of the 1940s, contemporary
"social network" tools haven't caught up with that work. In
particular, none of them permit me to maintain, with a single
nominal identity, different circles of acquaintances for
different purposes and with different trust and influence
relationships between and within each, an issue that was clearly
understood in the literature by the time I started reading it in
the first half of the 60s.
> Speculation: Social networking is looking for its killer
> application. Communication filtering appears to me to be the
> most likely such application. But we should be looking beyond
> email and the problem of email-spam to the filtering
> requirements of a multi-modal communications infrastructure.
While I suspect that, if we got down to the details we would
find we are talking about different things, I agree with the
above (and have been arguing for more recipient control of
communications for a very long time. That possible difference
in vocabulary is one of the difficulties with the "social
networking" field.
> I think that hallam@xxxxxxxxx should be the only
> communications identifier I need. From a personal perspective
> I prefer to eliminate the vendor lock in and have an RFC822
> address where I own the DNS portion of the identifier.
>...
> The key being that any such technology must be based on DNS
> names and RFC 822 addreses.
Of course, as soon as you tied your identity to email addresses
and domain names, you get entangled with the identifier
internationalization issues that were discussed in last
Thursday's plenary. Perhaps using an internationalized
identifier, by itself, increases the odds that the only people
who are likely to be able to try to contact you are already part
of your social (or at least cultural and linguistic) network,
but I doubt that is what you had in mind.
regards,
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf