I can see these as goals that the Internet Society might want to adopt. I'm not sure that 2) and 3) are IETF goals in any way, and I think we've got as close to stating 1) in technical terms as we ever will (see RFC 7258 for the bibliography on that). One more comment in line... On 16/05/2014 07:16, Dave Cridland wrote: > I find myself agreeing with pretty much everything you wrote here. The > thing I agree with most of all is the idea of selecting some long-range > goals so we can at least aim for them. My inlined comments are all minor. > > On 15 May 2014 17:57, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> 1) Security: All Internet protocols should provide confidentiality and >> integrity by default. >> >> > I generally agree with this as a default stance, but I do have some worries > that particularly on the constrained client end, we may need to ensure that > we can lose much of the security. It's happened before. > > I think we can ensure that the network proxies involved always handle > services which require confidentiality and integrity, though. > > This suggests we have a "zeroth law", as Asimov would put it, of: > > 0) Interoperability: All Internet protocols should be capable of > independent implementation on a range of platforms and deployments with no > visible limitation in functionality. Frankly I doubt that. Either it's fairly meaningless (a "range" could be just two types of device) or it's impossible (some protocols are definitely only going to work in specific environments; see ROLL for example). Brian > > >> 2) Access: The Internet is for everyone and everyone should be able to >> use it regardless of their geographic location or political >> interference. >> >> > I think "use" is far too weak here. I'm folding over to your next point, of > course, somewhat, but perhaps "engage", or "take part in". A typical home > user cannot, for example, spin up a webserver. An atypical user can, by > punching suitable holes in NAT devices (oh, if only that were literal), but > cannot run a VOIP service. I'd like to return to an Internet where if you > could read a web page you could run a server. > > >> 3) Autonomy: [Here I need a concise definition] >> >> >> > I entirely agree with your goals here, and "Autonomy" is a good name for it. > > What about: > > Autonomy: Every individual on the Internet should be able to assert > ownership and control over their own data, and be on equal footing as > regards both offering and consuming content and services, as well as > communication. > > So those are my goals. What goals should we be attempting to address? >> What are realistic timescales? >> >> Are we just going to be happy with a faster Internet with an >> effectively unlimited address space or do we have bigger goals? >> >> >> -- >> Website: http://hallambaker.com/ >> >> >