Phillip,
I think the IETF is about a million miles away from considering intelligent
distributed electronic abilities for archival when they do for example
make IETF content such as IETF 100 plenary video recordings only available
via a commercial video streaming provider called youtube that does prohibit
downloading and therefore makes any form of mirroring or other methods of
multi-party, voluntary long term availability of IETF video content impractical.
How about RFC would also be put exclusively on commercial platforms without free
download options.
Sorry, but i am quite irritated about youtube being used exclusively given that
services licensing conditions vs. the intent of IETF content.
Btw: If the IETF wants to save money by making live streaming supported by
advertisements via commercial platforms, then it should offer the content
openly to any such platform and suggest users to go to any such platform.
But primarily there needs to be platforms for free download of IETF content.
Once those rules of access are agreed on, intelligent software to support this
would definitely be great.
Cheers
Toerless
On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 02:20:56PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> I think we could use a small piece of technology to make this sort of thing
> easier to manage.
>
> The thing about formats is that if one person uses the format, the means of
> processing can be lost. But if you can get any sizable number of people to
> use a format, maybe as few as 10,000, and sufficient information encoded in
> it, then there will be sufficient incentive to decode it.
>
>
> I have been working on a Web Service for sharing information stores for
> things I call 'catalogs'. Think 'passwords', 'bookmarks', 'contacts'. The
> type of data that users enter on multiple devices but want to be able to
> retrieve from any of them as if they were one device.
>
> At the moment, I have mostly been considering the problem from the point of
> view of a set of devices that have an unreliable connection to a Web
> Service. So I have been considering cases like 'Alice adds Bob to her
> contacts on one device while it is offline and then to another that is
> online, how are these synchronized'. The type of problem that OneDrive etc.
> face.
>
> There is the converse of the problem in which a repository is maintained by
> multiple Web Services with some sort of voting mechanism to maintain
> consistency. Folk who remember DECNET clusters will remember the Quorum
> scheme they used.
>
>
> I developed a prototype of a container format using Merkle Trees for
> integrity checking and random access:
>
> http://www.prismproof.org/Documents/draft-hallambaker-jbcd-container.html
>
> The scheme is purposefully designed to separate integrity checking on the
> data content, integrity checking on content metadata and unchecked data. It
> also supports fast random access to arbitrary records in an append-only log.
>
>
> We could wrap a simple Web Service around it with operations such as:
>
> * Add item
> * Retrieve item with key X having value Y
> * Obtain best proof of integrity for record Z
>
> As with all these block-chainy sort of schemes, it is easy enough to check
> prior data values if you have an output digest that you can rely on.
> Establish trust in an output digest is rather more tricky.
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx