... reaction of "not wanting to politicize tech". More now accept that the interaction exists, and that we can shape tech somewhat to help or hinder certain political developments.
The human rights policy considerations group may not have much direct influence on many protocol designers, but I feel they have paved the way with the guidance they issued for taking certain effects into consideration.
They're now focused on the more specific interaction between tech and intimate partner violence.
... discussions on that topic which try to disambiguate a bit what that means. In the years before, it felt more like the different views on centralization led to arguments around whether the problem was more economic or political versus technical.
The view that seems to be emerging is that it's both, and we need to understand how technology and politics influence each other here. I think that is very hopeful! Because at least a fair number of people now have left behind the knee-jerk...
... it's no longer enough to resolve names to IP addresses, you also have to resolve to choices of transport protocols.
With encrypted transports, you always have a key exchange to deal with, which can be slow.
The TLS issue is that you have a TCP handshake, which exchanges three packets. Once the TCP session is established, you have a TLS handshake, which is also three or more packets. QUIC adds key information from the start, so you only have one handshake that combines both purposes.
So...
... used to. That's good, right?
It generally is. Except for a few annoying parts.
First, transport security isn't end-to-end security. It seems that people can forget that the goal is humans, not machines communicating, so transport security is of limited use.
The second thing is that switching from one protocol to the other means there is a need for a signalling mechanism telling clients how to connect to a service.
And guess what people always get back to?
That's right, DNS.
So now...
... what is relevant in the IETF at the moment and why.
This I find very hard to summarize, except for having an impression confirmed that essentially everything is moving to QUIC. If it can be done im QUIC, there is a lot of pressure to do it in QUIC.
Is this good or bad?
Well, I guess it's a little bit of both. One person put it as TLS eating its way into every part of the stack. Which means that we'll have more transport security by default, while having similar behavior to the TCP we're..
... puzzle is that it's also a space in which work gets set aside, and you meet the people behind the roles. I actually think that is very valuable to an organization that has to manage cooperation with this amount of complexity!
I'm sorry, no, this isn't about tech... it is about the people and relationships, and that's actually worth more.
With regards to the various working groups, BoFs and side meetings I went to outside of the DNS space, I gained a much better idea than I had before of...
... later, so you can't quite deny the networking effect.
Not only has this tradition continued, it apparently is now the case that other standards organization also put up puzzle tables. It's small things like this which created an instant connection between myself and a number of relatively random other people in the IETF, which seems stronger that I could have expected!
They now also started a board game night, which I hope will continue as well. What's noticeable here more than with the...
... versa.
I can't list all the ways in which this *wasn't* necessary, but I do think the puzzle table tradition stands out.
Last year in Prague, the organisers put up a table with a puzzle, which stood around unnoticed for a few days. At some point I asked what that was about, and was told it was an experiment, to see whether people liked working on it together. That led to me becoming one of the first #IETF puzzlers.
It also was where I met someone whose company I joined half a year...
... work, but attending the meetings gives you a much better impression of what everybody wants. That then provides the context for interpreting the fuzzier bits of charters and drafts. So that was very useful!
The other big takeaway for me was that I made some kinds of friends along the way, that I didn't quite expect. A lot of the times when you meet people once a year, so much happened between events that context is lost, and you have to reacquaint yourself with the other person and vice...
... for the Restful Provisioning Protocol went well! The charter is up to see at https://github.com/SIDN/ietf-wg-rpp-charter/blob/main/rpp-charter.md
It's driven by SIDN, but my colleagues are also in favour, so it was good to see overwhelming support for developing a more modern protocol for domain provisioning.
Other DNS related working groups made more sense to me after I just sat in them.
That's generally my approach here. It seems like reading charters gives you the stated intent, reading drafts reveals more about how things...
I kind of want to write up my #ietf121 experience, but I don't think what I would write will impart the meaning it has to me unless you are me, which most of you are not.
I went there for #DNS reasons. I did not take part in all of the DNS related working groups, because I am at this time most interested in networking and figuring the organization out better. That includes specifically the people involved with DNS, of course, but not exclusively.
Let's focus on DNS first.
I'm glad the BoF...
@grimalkina ... argues rather convincingly that virtual worlds are spaces, not games, even if we call them that (e.g. MMORPGs). They just happen to shared spaces we visit to play games within them. So a lot of the implicit rules of shared spaces apply.
I've long thought that any website is such a shared space, such as in a web forum. But that is not quite true, because the forum is neutral to all participants.
Social media has the specific difference to a forum that it acts as a home space...
@grimalkina ... a neutral, public space, it probably wouldn't get to that point of mutually feeling our personal space had been violated.
I see a fair few of social interactions that go bad play out in exactly that way. "Someone appears in my mentions" is one of those identifying phrases.
Once I started to understand this problem in terms of spaces, it made a lot more sense to me.
FWIW, this goes back for me to Dr. Richard Bartle, who co-created MUD, the first shared virtual world. He...
@grimalkina ... boosts it, SN algorithm puts it there, etc) to part of me it feels like you've come to my living room and made a statement there.
If it's a welcome statement, that's fine. But if not, it's sort of a violation of social boundaries?
The problem is, when you wrote your post, you were doing that in *your* space. So if I reply to it based on that feeling of violation, I might choose words that on your receiving end feel like a violation of social boundaries.
Were we both sharing..
@grimalkina I have no idea how which part of this thread to reply to with this comment, and I apologize if I said this already to you specifically...
I think there is a mismatch between the social contexts people are used to in the real world and how social media structures interactions that may lead to this thing you describe.
Specifically, social media blur the boundary between my space and yours. My space is my home feed, and if any of your posts turn up in mine (I follow you, someone ...
DINRG at #IETF121 made me feel a little bad, but also very good, in ways I didn't expect.
First off, it's how I got there. Dirk Kutscher saw a previous talk I gave at #FOSDEM and asked me to repeat it there. So with a bunch of tweaking, I did.
It was on how technological choices in the web drive its centralization, and it got a lot of feedback from the room, mostly positive I'd say. If you want, you can see it here:
https://makertube.net/w/hRk3z3R7fue1dcJpZzN7vY
What I didn't get is the impression that people...
@deadsuperhero @evan @mmasnick I'm not a fan of what's happening with the foundation backed by GAFAM (TL;DR), but one point is rather irritating, Sean: what you say about FEPs.
FEPs are not substantially different from RFCs or W3C documents. Your argument here, then, seems to boil down to "the entire Internet and web are embarrassing because of how they're governed".
Sean, purely on a technological level, that's a pretty bad look.
@thisismissem @helge I understand that.
And yet, the descriptions on schema.org are enough to perform validation with.
This isn't a JSON-LD or RDF question, really. It just happens to be the case that's what my data is expressed in.
@helge I'm not saying it's invalid JSON-LD.
@helge well, it's less whether that is valid. But if you e.g. have:
{
"@context": "https://schema.org/",
"@type": "Thing",
"name": 3.14
}
It should probably tell me it's not valid, because the name property should be Text (it's a little difficult here because in a textual representation as JSON, everything is text, but from a typing point of view, this isn't).
