[ih] "The Internet runs on Proposed Standards"

[Grant Taylor]

On 12/3/22 1:37 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
> I still have doubts about "The Internet runs on Proposed Standards". 
> Does anybody know -- Is it true?  How do you know? Personally I haven't 
> found any way, at least as a User, to tell what technology is inside all 
> the equipment, software, services, protocols, algorithms, et al that are 
> operating between my keyboard/screen and yours.  It could be all 
> Standards of some ilk, or it could all be Proprietary.   It might 
> conform to the spec, or have some zero-day flaw.  How do you tell?

I think that's a valid concern.

I do think that observations from a 100 foot point of view can indicate 
that at least some of the things are common, even if more proprietary 
than official standards.

I say this because of interoperability.  E.g. take a keyboard; USB, 
PS/2, or even ADB, and look at how many different keyboards you can buy 
from different vendors and use them across a wide range of computers. 
The simple fact that they interoperate as well as they do indicates to 
me that they are using something common, even if it's not the official 
standard.  As such I think that it's quite clear that it's not something 
proprietary to one vendor.

Different operating systems mesh with different computers in an 
interoperable manner.  Different web browsers behave similarly.  We have 
source code to some of the web browsers and can compile reproducable 
builds matching what vendors distribute.  We can see that these open 
source web browsers behave very similarly if not the same as close 
source web browsers.  As such, we can deduce that both the open and 
closed source web browsers are behaving very similarly.  This is 
especially true if we have a common server, more so if it's a server we 
control & monitor.

I think similar methodology and logic can be applied to many layers of 
the stack, both hardware and software.

Aside:  What is a standard?  Is it a specification and / or something 
implemented (in an interoperable way) by multiple vendors?

> Rough consensus.  Running code.   Operational experience.

:-)

> I'm not very familiar with how the process works today, or how we got 
> from there to here.   But my impression is that today there are few if 
> any of those old "process" mechanisms still in place. Technology is 
> defined in RFCs, but there may not be any open and freely available 
> implementations for others to use or examine. There seem to be no 
> mechanisms for any kind of "certification" that an implementation even 
> exists in whatever hardware/software you might have in front of you. Few 
> people, even techies, seem to be aware of the available technology in 
> the RFCs, let alone how to use them and their purpose.   Users have no 
> clue, even when technology is present, of how to use it (looking at you 
> PGP).   No one seems to care much about getting a technology into actual 
> widespread use, except within their own product, service, walled garden, 
> etc.

"More Gear" vs "Learning to Use Existing Gear" comes to mind.

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5534618be4b0fc1dd67c939c/1559565752896-B91S8QXW83FLLKKDGMFY/image_71C0CF3B-0B33-490A-B1C2-49D4D2F7627A.JPG?format=750w

Apparently that's a photoshop of a complaints / gratitude commic by Mike 
Baldwin.

https://evergreenleadership.com/2010/11/23/gratitude-or-grouchiness-the-choice-that-shapes-what-you-recieve/gratitude-cartoon/

> My impression is that the role of the technology development has changed 
> a lot over the years.  The "deliverable" of the process today seems to 
> be RFCs, defining technology that is placed on a public "shelf" and 
> offered for anybody to use as they like.   The "process" that causes 
> technology to be actually deployed into field operation is someone 
> else's task.

HEAVYsigh

> If you look at other infrastructures, there's some parallels to the 
> Internet which is arguably a new infrastructure.  E.g., electricity was 
> invented and early users experienced fires, explosions, electrocutions, 
> and other such nasty side-effects.  But over time rules were developed, 
> building codes created, inspectors put in place, grids and procedures 
> developed, and electricity made much more reliable and safe as an 
> infrastructure.

The most commonly deployed current / voltage / frequency became the 
standard (in the region).  ;-)

> One of the reasons I recall as an explanation of why TCP succeeded where 
> OSI failed is because the TCP community produced working code while OSI 
> produced only very expensive paper.

/me humorously points to his previous statement.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die