Re: The ecosystem is moving
2016-05-14 17:41:50
On 5/14/16 5:46 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:
In Line ..
Also in line.
*From: *ietf <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> on behalf of Miles Fidelman
<mfidelman(_at_)meetinghouse(_dot_)net>
*Date: *Friday, May 13, 2016 at 9:38 PM
*To: *<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
*Subject: *Re: The ecosystem is moving
Back to the original point, for a moment:
Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer(_at_)nic(_dot_)fr> <mailto:bortzmeyer(_at_)nic(_dot_)fr>
Wed, 11 May 2016 12:58 UTCShow header
A very interesting paper (I said "intesresting", I didn't say I
agree!) on open networks where independant nodes with independently
developed programs interoperate thanks to standards. The author claims
closed and centralized systemes are better, because they allow faster
evolution (he uses security as an example).
Many IETF cases mentioned (XMPP, IPv6, email...)
https://whispersystems.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/
My long-standing observation is that the climate has changed. In the
early days, there was both "demand pull" for new protocols, and an
environment that encouraged (and to an extent) funded new protocol
development and deployment.
Since then, the climate has changed:
- it's very hard to get a new protocol into the ecosystem (there are
quite a few useful protocols, that simply are not supported)
RS> Like security protocols? Dare I say it its harder and harder to
get any work done in standards bodies and the IETF in particular? We
have met the enemy and it is us… are we the new ITU? That is another
thread altogether.
- the drivers have changed from greater interconnection and
interoperability (back to the original ARPANET drivers of resource
sharing and collaboration) - to "can it be monetized?"
RS> Duh! Time to market. That said genuine interconnection and
interoperability still does have value. Both the internet and the
legacy as well as evolving global SIP voice network proves that.
There is a strong counter argument that long term value in global
communications, namely persistent revenue streams, are built on
globally interoperable services. ATT, DT, BT, FT, Bell, NTT etc have
not gone out of business, though they endlessly whine about losing
some of the value models. We can send them some cheese to go with
their whining.
Worse than that, I think. The first generation protocols were not
driven my market at all - think Ray Tomlinson and email, or Tim
Berners-Lee and HTTP. Nobody ever set out to make money from them - and
nobody really has (except for some hosting).
In the short term Layer 7 silos can work, especially in closed user
communities, think instant messaging in the financial community and
secure public safety applications as you correctly point out but at
global scale you hit a wall eventually.
It's simply a lot easier to deploy a new SaaS, behind an API, and to
charge for it, than it is to deploy new protocol infrastructure.
RS> +1 That is certainly what is going on in Real-time Voice Services.
Think Skype in its original deployment. I noted that the piece called
out the reuse of phone numbers as persistent global identifiers for
service delivery. Oh Internet domains .. they are soooooo 90’s J
I totally get that. TN’s are globally unique they are ubiquitous,
linguistically neutral and people have proven that if you use them
correctly you can make a boat load of money. WhatsApp? Wow use the
phone numbers and the existing national regulatory number allocation
regime. Centralize your application ..collect 8 Billion dollars and do
not pass GO. Works for me! Why didn’t I think of that?
If I had 5 euro/dollars/pounds for every time I’ve heard “Phone
numbers are stupid” I be sitting in the sun in St. Barts or the South
of France with a cold glass of Champagne and would have resigned from
this list years ago.
The exception seems to be when there is a strong "forcing function" -
applied top-down. DoD Force Transformation & the Command & Control
Research Program drove new operational models into the military
environment - into networks, into system specifications, and into
doctrine. Examples that come to mind:
- XMPP is widely used for tactical chat
- DIS is widely used to support distributed simulation and training -
including deployment of persistent training federations
- Tactical Data Links (e.g., Link-16) are all over the place
- DDS is widely used for sensor-weapon linkages
Also of note - NNTP remains widely used on the SIPRNET, at the top of
the MDMP (Military Decision Making Process)
Another example that comes to mind is the Digital Libraries Initiative
- which forced a lot standards and protocols for library system
interoperability.
IMHO, without such forcing functions, the natural tendency is toward
centralized, proprietary services - and back toward a world of walled
gardens. Even in areas where we have a measure of widespread
interoperability - such as calendaring - we see things like Google
pulling iCal support - making it ever so much more tedious to schedule
a meeting.
RS> Excellent observation and spot on with the issue with iCal. Don’t
get me started with trying to sync Outlook for Mac with the rest of my
Apple device infrastructure. Gurrrrr.
For what it's worth - I'm starting to push the idea of some kind of
equivalent to the CCRP or Digital Libraries initiative - time for a new
forcing function.
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: The ecosystem is moving, (continued)
- Re: The ecosystem is moving, Matthew Kerwin
- Re: The ecosystem is moving, Miles Fidelman
- Re: The ecosystem is moving, Richard Shockey
- Re: The ecosystem is moving,
Miles Fidelman <=
- Re: The ecosystem is moving, Richard Shockey
- Re: The ecosystem is moving, Dave Cridland
- Re: The ecosystem is moving, ned+ietf
- Re: The ecosystem is moving, Ted Lemon
- Re: The ecosystem is moving, John Levine
- Re: The ecosystem is moving, Dave Cridland
- Re: The ecosystem is moving, Dave Cridland
Re: The ecosystem is moving, Nico Williams
|
|
|