[Chapter-delegates] Launch of a discussion on DOA / DONA

[Richard Hill]

Please see embedded comments below.

Thanks and best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chapter-delegates [mailto:chapter-delegates-
> bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Christian de Larrinaga
> Sent: Sunday, July 9, 2017 15:32
> To: Andrei Kolesnikov
> Cc: Chapter Delegates
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Launch of a discussion on DOA / DONA
> 
> Yes "for some applications" I agree. I suspect the concern Olivier is
> expressing (and he can correct me) is if the current negotiated
> relationship via ITU could lead to temptation for mandating a narrow
> implementation (of Handles) for some application classes such as for
> some IoT apps on the basis of a "security" argument and so forth. i.e.,

Although I don't follow the discussions all that closely, my understanding is that proposals of that nature have been made and will likely be made again in the future.  However, past proposals of that nature encountered significant opposition and future proposals will likely also encounter significant opposition, so, in my view, they are not likely to be approved.

> limit choice and tie the market in

The proposals in question related to non-binding Resolutions and/or Recommendations.  Nobody is obliged to follow their provisions.  So, even if accepted, the proposals would not, in and of themselves, limit choice or tie in the market.  The danger is rather that some governments, at the national level, might mandate some technology or other for some application or other.  But that would apply only at the national level, so it would limit market choice at the national level.

> to a top down ITU governed registry model.

As I understand the situation, ITU does not provide the DONA registry service, nor is that service "governed" by the ITU.

Whether or not DONA is "top down" depends on what you mean by "top down". Like most (all?) hierarchical naming/addressing schemes, there is a top-level registry and in order to resolve the names you have to start at that top level.  That's also the case for the DNS and for IP addresses.

It is also the case in theory for telephone numbers, but not 100% in practice: there are deviations from the hierarchy published by the ITU and the national numbering authorities, for example creating an invalid telephone number in order to make unwanted marketing telephone calls.

> 
> This is not a concern provided there is a realistic open plurality
> globally, not only of registry space within Handles (and similar) but
> between persistent object identifier services even for the same
> objects.
> 
> 
> Christian
> 
> > Andrei Kolesnikov <mailto:andrei at rol.ru>
> > 9 July 2017 at 11:04
> >  I agree. Yet, it's just another way of object property recording,
> > storage, fetching. For some applications it is a good architecture.
> > And also it has nothing to do with DNS. There are few applications
> > built on DOI (not only books and articles), such as objects tracking
> > systems. And it works good.
> >
> > --andrei
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Andrey Kolesnikov
> > RIPN.NET <http://RIPN.NET>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically
> > subscribed to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the
> > Internet Society Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org John
> > Levine <mailto:isocmember at johnlevine.com>
> > 5 July 2017 at 21:46
> >
> > DOA is just a warmed over edition of the Handle system from 2003. Its
> > transport protocol has never been used other than experimentally,
> > there is no reason to think it would scale well, and the only
> > significant real world application is DOIs, who long ago switched to
> > http for transport. I wouldn't worry about it.
> >
> > R's,
> > John
> > _______________________________________________
> > As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically
> > subscribed to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the
> > Internet Society Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
> Olivier
> > MJ Crépin-Leblond <mailto:ocl at gih.com>
> > 5 July 2017 at 16:32
> > Dear Colleagues,
> >
> > one of the tasks that I volunteered for as part of the Chapter
> > Advisory Council Executive Committee is to check with the Internet
> > Society Chapters community on their view of DOA / DONA - Digital
> > Object Architecture. An excellent description of the topic is given
> on:
> > https://www.internetsociety.org/doc/overview-digital-object-
> architectu
> > re-doa
> > https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/public-policy/2016/10/what-
> digita
> > l-object-architecture-doa-read-our-new-information-paper
> >
> > Back at the IGF in Guadalajara, I raise the topic with several
> people,
> > as I felt DOA could be a threat to other types of addressing and also
> > impose a centralised, top down control of Internet of Things (IoT)
> > devices. That goes directly against Internet Core values and
> certainly
> > obliterates and idea that governance of IoT devices could continue in
> > a multistakeholder manner. Furthermore, this centralisation of
> control
> > introduces a security weakness that is serious - a single point of
> > failure. That's why I called it a threat.
> >
> > Back in Guadalajara, I raised the concern that the IETF should speed
> > up its work to propose alternative identification/trust systems to
> DOA
> > which include local protocols for local trust that is end user
> controlled.
> > Since then, I have spoken to several people at IETF and whilst work
> > continues to take place in these topics, the perception of immediate
> > threat from DOA/DONA has somehow faded.
> >
> > So my question is simple: in your view, is the threat of DOA/DONA
> > still as strong as it was back 6 months ago. Is this a topic that we
> > in the Internet Society should be active about? In what way? Should
> we
> > promote more resources in the IETF to design alternative? Or is this
> > just one of many technologies that will hardly have any impact?
> > And finally, how should this topic be addressed in light of the
> > Internet Society's combining of efforts with the Online Trust
> Alliance
> > (OTA):
> > https://www.internetsociety.org/news/ota-and-isoc-combine-resources-
> en
> > hance-online-trust-security-and-privacy
> >
> > Looking forward to hear from you soon.
> > Kindest regards,
> >
> > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
> > Internet Society Chapter AC Steering Committee member
> > _______________________________________________
> > As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically
> > subscribed to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the
> > Internet Society Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
> 
> --
> Christian de Larrinaga  FBCS, CITP,
> -------------------------
> @ FirstHand
> -------------------------
> +44 7989 386778
> cdel at firsthand.net
> -------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org