> However, I disagree with some of the analysis, and have a couple specific points to correct.

[cwebber@social.coop]

More from the RFC:

> [...] approaches like requiring a "Centralization Considerations" section in documents, gatekeeping publication on a centralization review, or committing significant resources to searching for centralization in protocols are unlikely to improve the Internet.

[viq@social.hackerspace.pl]

@cwebber hey, First Secret Goblin popped up! Does it want to be petted, or does it want to bite me in the shin and steal my lunch?

[cwebber@social.coop]

RFC, cotd:

> Similarly, refusing to standardize a protocol because it does not actively prevent all forms of centralization ignores the very limited power that standards efforts have to do so. Almost all existing Internet protocols -- including IP, TCP, HTTP, and DNS -- fail to prevent centralized applications from using them. While the imprimatur of the standards track is not without value, merely withholding it cannot prevent centralization.

[cwebber@social.coop]

RFC, cotd:

> Almost all existing Internet protocols -- including IP, TCP, HTTP, and DNS -- fail to prevent centralized applications from using them. While the imprimatur of the standards track is not without value, merely withholding it cannot prevent centralization.

[cwebber@social.coop]

RFC, cotd:

> Thus, discussions should be very focused and limited, and any proposals for decentralization should be detailed so their full effects can be evaluated.

[cwebber@social.coop]

Mark is not wrong that standards can't prevent centralization on their own! Mark's analysis of how many things end up re-centralizing is, overall, also largely correct!

However, I disagree in the present moment that standards orgs shouldn't be making decentralization concerns a *key priority*.

[cwebber@social.coop]

But Mark, to be fully fair, does examine several strategies, and their strengths and downfalls, of how we may enable decentralization.

However, the path that Mark most heavily leans into is "Enable Switching". Hm. Does that phrase sound familiar?

[cwebber@social.coop]

"Enable switching" from the RFC:

> The ability to switch between different function providers is a core mechanism to control centralization. If users are unable to switch, they cannot exercise choice or fully realize the value of their efforts because, for example, "learning to use a vendor's product takes time, and the skill may not be fully transferable to a competitor's product if there is inadequate standardization".

(cotd ...)

[cwebber@social.coop]

"Enable switching" cotd:

> Therefore, standards should have an explicit goal of facilitating users switching between implementations and deployments of the functions they define or enable.

Does this sound familiar? If so, it's because it's awfully close to "credible exit"!

[cwebber@social.coop]

As said, I think "credible exit" is a worthwhile goal. But it isn't participatory decentralization, on its own. The ability to *move away* is good, but what if your options are to choose between McDonalds and Burger King? Is that *sufficient*?

[cwebber@social.coop]

In particular, Mark is especially fair to highlight that email and XMPP are great examples of decentralized systems that either ended up centralizing in the case of email or failing to stay alive after the exit of a major player in terms of XMPP.

Mark's RFC has a lot of useful analysis. It does!

[cwebber@social.coop]

So I've given a lot of context for Mark's RFC: it's an RFC by a respected standards author who has a long history of participating in standards from major internet-based corporations. It worries a bit about centralization but overall downplays decentralization more than it plays it up IMO.

[cwebber@social.coop]

And this is important of course, because this is the RFC where the definition of "decentralization" being provided comes from!

Or wait, or is it? Oh right, the RFC cites another source for its definition!

It's time to examine Paul Baran's 1964 paper. The story is about to become more intense.

[cwebber@social.coop]

Except, like a 1990s sitcom, we're gonna cut to a break!

We'll be back... after

=== TEA BREAK 2: MY NOSE IS COLD ===

[cwebber@social.coop]

Alright I'm back from my tea break. But I have a confession for you.

I made hot chocolate instead.

But we are going to get into the second part of the unnecessarily thorough "decentralization" terminology deep dive I'm doing here in just a moment

[cwebber@social.coop]

Before we get into that it's also getting pretty late here and I have another confession to make to you, I was pretty hungry, so you know what I did? I stood in the kitchen and I ate hummus in the kitchen with a spoon over the sink

You have found Secret Goblin #2, judging me for my hummus shame

[viv@snoot.tube]

@cwebber goblin up the hummus

[cwebber@social.coop]

When we last left off I was peeling back layers of the terminology onion and we have gotten to the inner layer (maybe it goes deeper, I guess terminology usually does but this is as far as we go)

It is time to examine "decentralization" in Baran 1964

Because I am being UNNECESSARILY thorough

[cwebber@social.coop]

So here is Paul Baran's "literally the most influential paper to affect networking systems ever" 1964 paper:

"On Distributed Communications: I. Introduction to Distributed Communication Networks" https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/RM3420.html

It's good, it's amazing, it's INCREDIBLY visionary

[cwebber@social.coop]

So okay yeah it's very military-oriented but... but! The context for this paper is that Paul Baran is arguing for what eventually *becomes* networking as we know it. Baran says: let's use *cheap* equipment with *way less centralization that we've ever seen* and it'll be *better actually!*