[Chapter-delegates] ISOC open letter

[Mike Godwin]

Steve, this is one thing that has struck me as odd as well. My view of
"layers" has been that it's a kind of metaphorical way to taxonomize
different functions and services--at best a kind of heuristic for picturing
and grasping how the internet works. But some people have decided
(apparently) that the taxonomy or heuristic is an articulation of first
principles.

Mike




On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 1:54 PM Steve Crocker via Chapter-delegates <
chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> When we were first thinking protocol architecture for the Arpanet, layers
> were building blocks.  They were to be used if and when they were useful,
> but it was also envisioned people might skip layers, insert layers, etc.,
> etc.  I turned away from networking after a couple of years.  When I turned
> my attention back to network some years later, I learned the OSI model had
> exactly seven layers.  I nearly fell over laughing.
>
> Steve
>
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 1:50 PM Andrew Sullivan via Chapter-delegates <
> chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 06:58:04PM +0200, Richard Hill via
>> Chapter-delegates wrote:
>>
>> >To me, the Link, Internet, and Transport layers are for sure
>> infrastructure.
>> >Some parts of the Application layer might be infrastructure, but much of
>> it
>> >is not.
>>
>> Suppose I invent an experimental transport that I'm using over the
>> Internet to communicate with two friends.  Is it infrastructure?  Maybe
>> sort of -- it's perhaps infrastructure for the three of us, but it's really
>> just mystery garbage to everyone else.  Now, suppose that I am Google and I
>> invent an experimental protocol that I deploy to browsers that I give to
>> everyone (but which is not yet standardized) and that lives in an
>> application-layer protocol.  Is it infrastructure?  I'd say it's hard to
>> claim that it is _not_ infrastructure, and so we're already in deep trouble
>> with the layer model.
>>
>> Further,
>>
>> >No, there is not a bright line. Still I think that most people would
>> agree
>> >that, at least at present, e-commerce platforms, streaming services, and
>> >social media are not infrastructure.
>>
>> I am unprepared to speculate what most people would agree to on this
>> topic, but I'm rather less certain than you seem to be.  I definitely
>> disagree that some parts of social media are not infrastructure: the
>> uniquity of "login via Facebook", "login via Google", and "login via
>> Twitter" buttons show that _at least part_ of some social media platforms
>> are definitely infrastructure on the modern Internet: accounts in unrelated
>> services are using OAUTH services that depend on features tied to a
>> particular social media system identity.  If that isn't infrastructure to
>> you, then we're simply talking about different things.
>>
>> >broadcast evolve, but the basic concept is the same: to use some medium
>> to
>> >send the same content to a lot of people more-or-less at the same time
>>
>> But that is not, of course, the overwhelmingly dominant way that people
>> use the Internet.  Clubhouse aside, people are just not setting their alarm
>> clocks to make sure they watch their favourite Internet show when it comes
>> on.  And they're not being tidy and careful about (in the case we're
>> talking about) Candian content rules for who made the production and who
>> were the performers and so on.  The traditional solution that Canada had
>> for this was to use broadcast licensing to force the Canadian content to be
>> carried into Canadian homes even if Canadians often didn't want it.  The
>> Internet presents a challenge to that model, because the Internet doesn't
>> impose a rigid distinction as to who is a "producer" and who a "consumer".
>> C-10 (and a host of other similar proposals in other countries) appear to
>> be an attempt to re-impose those kinds of distinctions, frequently with
>> implicit or explicit expectations that the network provide the necessary
>> facilities to enforce the regulatory prefe
>>  rence.  To me, that is a threat to the Internet Way of Networking, and
>> the Internet Society should oppose it.
>>
>> I am sad that I appear unable to convince you of this, but I suppose we
>> will have to agree to disagree.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> A
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> President & CEO, Internet Society
>> sullivan at isoc.org
>> +1 416 731 1261
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
>> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
>> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20210520/cefe3c74/attachment.htm>