[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-iab-for-t...] [Tracker] [Diff1] [Diff2]
For this RFC, original HTML is available from the RFC-Editor: RFC8890

INFORMATIONAL

Internet Architecture Board (IAB)                          M. Nottingham
Request for Comments: 8890                                   August 2020
Category: Informational
ISSN: 2070-1721


                     The Internet is for End Users

Abstract

   This document explains why the IAB believes that, when there is a
   conflict between the interests of end users of the Internet and other
   parties, IETF decisions should favor end users.  It also explores how
   the IETF can more effectively achieve this.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
   and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to
   provide for permanent record.  It represents the consensus of the
   Internet Architecture Board (IAB).  Documents approved for
   publication by the IAB are not candidates for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8890.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
   2.  Who Are "End Users"?
   3.  Why the IETF Should Prioritize End Users
   4.  How the IETF Can Prioritize End Users
     4.1.  Engaging the Internet Community
     4.2.  Creating User-Focused Systems
     4.3.  Identifying Negative End-User Impact
     4.4.  Handling Conflicting End-User Needs
     4.5.  Deprioritizing Internal Needs
   5.  IANA Considerations
   6.  Security Considerations
   7.  Informative References
   IAB Members at the Time of Approval
   Acknowledgements
   Author's Address

1.  Introduction

   Many who participate in the IETF are most comfortable making what we
   believe to be purely technical decisions; our process favors
   technical merit through our well-known mantra of "rough consensus and
   running code."

   Nevertheless, the running code that results from our process (when
   things work well) inevitably has an impact beyond technical
   considerations, because the underlying decisions afford some uses
   while discouraging others.  While we believe we are making only
   technical decisions, in reality, we are defining (in some degree)
   what is possible on the Internet itself.

   This impact has become significant.  As the Internet increasingly
   mediates essential functions in societies, it has unavoidably become
   profoundly political; it has helped people overthrow governments,
   revolutionize social orders, swing elections, control populations,
   collect data about individuals, and reveal secrets.  It has created
   wealth for some individuals and companies while destroying that of
   others.

   All of this raises the question: For whom do we go through the pain
   of gathering rough consensus and writing running code?

   After all, there are a variety of parties that standards can benefit,
   such as (but not limited to) end users, network operators, schools,
   equipment vendors, specification authors, specification implementers,
   content owners, governments, nongovernmental organizations, social
   movements, employers, and parents.

   Successful specifications will provide some benefit to all the
   relevant parties because standards do not represent a zero-sum game.
   However, there are sometimes situations where there is a conflict
   between the needs of two (or more) parties.

   In these situations, when one of those parties is an "end user" of
   the Internet -- for example, a person using a web browser, mail
   client, or another agent that connects to the Internet -- the
   Internet Architecture Board argues that the IETF should favor their
   interests over those of other parties.

   Section 2 explains what is meant by "end users", Section 3 outlines
   why IETF work should prioritize them, and Section 4 describes how we
   can do that.

2.  Who Are "End Users"?

   In this document, "end users" means human users whose activities IETF
   standards support, sometimes indirectly.  Thus, the end user of a
   protocol to manage routers is not a router administrator; it is the
   people using the network that the router operates within.

   End users are not necessarily a homogenous group; they might have
   different views of how the Internet should work and might occupy
   several roles, such as a seller, buyer, publisher, reader, service
   provider, and consumer.  An end user might browse the Web, monitor
   remote equipment, play a game, videoconference with colleagues, send
   messages to friends, or perform an operation in a remote surgery
   theater.  They might be "at the keyboard" or represented by software
   indirectly (e.g., as a daemon).

   Likewise, an individual end user might have many interests (e.g.,
   privacy, security, flexibility, reachability) that are sometimes in
   tension.

   A person whose interests we need to consider might not directly be
   using a specific system connected to the Internet.  For example, if a
   child is using a browser, the interests of that child's parents or
   guardians may be relevant.  A person pictured in a photograph may
   have an interest in systems that process that photograph; a person
   entering a room with sensors that send data to the Internet may have
   interests that may be involved in our deliberations about how those
   sensor readings are handled.

   While such less-direct interactions between people and the Internet
   may be harder to evaluate, this document's concept of "end user"
   nonetheless includes such people.

3.  Why the IETF Should Prioritize End Users

   Even before the IETF was established, the Internet technical
   community has focused on user needs since at least [RFC0001], which
   stated that "One of our goals must be to stimulate the immediate and
   easy use by a wide class of users."

   And, while we specialize in technical matters, the IETF is not
   neutral about the purpose of its work in developing the Internet; in
   "A Mission Statement for the IETF" [RFC3935], the definitions
   include:

   |  The IETF community wants the Internet to succeed because we
   |  believe that the existence of the Internet, and its influence on
   |  economics, communication, and education, will help us to build a
   |  better human society.

   Later, in "The Scope of the Internet" (Section 4.1 of [RFC3935]), it
   says:

   |  The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF.  We
   |  want the Internet to be useful for communities that share our
   |  commitment to openness and fairness.  We embrace technical
   |  concepts such as decentralized control, edge-user empowerment and
   |  sharing of resources, because those concepts resonate with the
   |  core values of the IETF community.  These concepts have little to
   |  do with the technology that's possible, and much to do with the
   |  technology that we choose to create.

   In other words, the IETF develops and maintains the Internet to
   promote the social good.  The society that the IETF is attempting to
   enhance is composed of end users, along with groups of them forming
   businesses, governments, clubs, civil society organizations, and
   other institutions.

   Merely advancing the measurable success of the Internet (e.g.,
   deployment size, bandwidth, latency, number of users) is not an
   adequate goal; doing so ignores how technology is so often used as a
   lever to assert power over users, rather than empower them.

   Beyond fulfilling the IETF's mission, prioritizing end users can also
   help to ensure the long-term health of the Internet and the IETF's
   relevance to it.  Perceptions of capture by vendors or other
   providers harm both; the IETF's work will (deservedly) lose end
   users' trust if it prioritizes (or is perceived to prioritize)
   others' interests over them.

   Ultimately, the Internet will succeed or fail based upon the actions
   of its end users, because they are the driving force behind its
   growth to date.  Not prioritizing them jeopardizes the network effect
   that the Internet relies upon to provide so much value.

4.  How the IETF Can Prioritize End Users

   There are a few ways that the IAB believes the IETF community can
   prioritize end users, based upon our observations.  This is not a
   complete list.

4.1.  Engaging the Internet Community

   The IETF community does not have any unique insight into what is
   "good for end users", and it is not uncommon for us to be at a
   further disadvantage because of our close understanding of some --
   but not all -- aspects of the Internet.

   At the same time, we have a culture of considerable deference to a
   broader "Internet community" -- roughly what this document calls end
   users -- in our decision-making processes.  Mere deference, however,
   is not adequate; even with the best intentions, we cannot assume that
   our experiences of the Internet are those of all of its end users or
   that our decisions have a positive impact upon them.

   Therefore, we have not only a responsibility to analyze and consider
   the impacts of the IETF's work, but also a responsibility to consult
   with that greater Internet community.  In particular, we should do so
   when one of our decisions has a potential impact upon end users.

   The IETF community faces significant hurdles in doing so.  Our work
   is specialized and often esoteric, and processes for developing
   standards often involve very long timescales.  Affected parties are
   rarely technical experts, and they often base their understanding of
   the Internet upon incomplete (and sometimes inaccurate) models.
   Often, even when we try to engage a broader audience, their
   participation is minimal -- until a change affects someone in a way
   they don't like.  Surprising the Internet community is rarely a good
   outcome.

   Government-sponsored individuals sometimes participate in the IETF
   community.  While this is welcome, it should not be taken as
   automatically representative of end users elsewhere, or even all end
   users in the relevant jurisdiction.  Furthermore, what is desirable
   in one jurisdiction (or at least to its administrators) might be
   detrimental in others (see Section 4.4).

   While some civil society organizations specialize in technology and
   Internet policy, they rarely can participate broadly, nor are they
   necessarily representative of the larger Internet community.
   Nevertheless, their understanding of end-user needs is often
   profound, and they are in many ways the best-informed advocates for
   end-user concerns; they should be considered a primary channel for
   engaging the broader Internet community.

   A promising approach to help fill these gaps is to identify and
   engage with specifically affected communities when making decisions
   that might affect them, for example, one or more industry
   associations, user groups, or a set of individuals, though we can't
   formally ensure that they are appropriately representative.

   In doing so, we should not require them to "come to us"; unless a
   stakeholder community is already engaged in the IETF process
   effectively, the IETF community should explore how to meet with them
   on their terms -- take the initiative to contact them, explain our
   work, and solicit their feedback.

   In particular, while IAB workshops, BOFs, and Bar BOFs can be an
   effective mechanism to gather input within our community, they rarely
   have the visibility into other communities that is required to
   solicit input, much less effective participation.

   Instead, an event like a workshop may be more effective if co-located
   with -- and ideally hosted or co-hosted by -- a forum that's familiar
   to that stakeholder community.  We should also raise the visibility
   of IETF work (or potential IETF work) in such fora through conference
   talks, panels, newsletter articles, etc.

   For example, the IAB ESCAPE workshop [RFC8752] solicited input from
   Internet publishers and advertisers about a proposal that might
   affect them.  While the workshop was considered successful,
   participation might have been improved by identifying an appropriate
   industry forum and working with them to host the event.

   When we engage with the Internet community, we should also clearly
   identify tailored feedback mechanisms (e.g., subscribing to a mailing
   list may not be appropriate) and assure that they are well known in
   those communities.

   The Internet Society can be an invaluable partner in these efforts;
   their focus on the Internet community, policy expertise, and
   resources can help to facilitate discussions with the appropriate
   parties.

   Finally, we should remember that the RFC Series contains Requests For
   Comments; if there are serious implications of our work, we should
   document them and ask for feedback from the Internet community.

4.2.  Creating User-Focused Systems

   We should pay particular attention to the kinds of architectures we
   create and whether they encourage or discourage an Internet that
   works for end users.

   For example, one of the most successful Internet applications is the
   Web, which uses the HTTP application protocol.  One of HTTP's key
   implementation roles is that of the web browser -- called the "user
   agent" in [RFC7230] and other specifications.

   User agents act as intermediaries between a service and the end user;
   rather than downloading an executable program from a service that has
   arbitrary access into the users' system, the user agent only allows
   limited access to display content and run code in a sandboxed
   environment.  End users are diverse and the ability of a few user
   agents to represent individual interests properly is imperfect, but
   this arrangement is an improvement over the alternative -- the need
   to trust a website completely with all information on your system to
   browse it.

   Defining the user agent role in standards also creates a virtuous
   cycle; it allows multiple implementations, allowing end users to
   switch between them with relatively low costs (although there are
   concerns about the complexity of the Web creating barriers to entry
   for new implementations).  This creates an incentive for implementers
   to consider the users' needs carefully, which are often reflected
   into the defining standards.  The resulting ecosystem has many
   remaining problems, but a distinguished user agent role provides an
   opportunity to improve it.

   In contrast, the Internet of Things (IoT) has not yet seen the broad
   adoption of a similar role; many current systems require opaque,
   vendor-specific software or hardware for the user-facing component.
   Perhaps as a result of this, that ecosystem and its end users face
   serious challenges.

4.3.  Identifying Negative End-User Impact

   At its best, our work will unambiguously build a better human
   society.  Sometimes, we will consciously be neutral and open-ended,
   allowing the "tussle" among stakeholders to produce a range of
   results (see [TUSSLE] for further discussion).

   At the very least, however, we must examine our work for negative
   impact on end users and take steps to mitigate it where encountered.
   In particular, when we've identified a conflict between the interests
   of end users and other stakeholders, we should err on the side of
   protecting end users.

   Note that "negative impact on end users" is not defined in this
   document; that is something that the relevant body (e.g., working
   group) needs to discuss and come to consensus on.  Merely asserting
   that something is harmful is not adequate.  The converse is also
   true, though; it's not good practice to avoid identifying harms, nor
   is it acceptable to ignore them when brought to our attention.

   The IAB and IETF have already established a body of guidance for
   situations where this conflict is common, including (but not limited
   to) [RFC7754] on filtering, [RFC7258] and [RFC7624] on pervasive
   surveillance, [RFC7288] on host firewalls, and [RFC6973] regarding
   privacy considerations.

   Much of that advice has focused on maintaining the end-to-end
   properties of a connection [RFC3724].  This does not mean that our
   responsibility to end users stops there; decisions might affect them
   in other ways.  For example, data collection by various applications
   even inside otherwise secure connections is a major problem on the
   Internet today.  Also, inappropriate concentration of power on the
   Internet has become a concerning phenomenon -- one that protocol
   design might have some influence upon.

4.4.  Handling Conflicting End-User Needs

   When the needs of different end users conflict (for example, two sets
   of end users both have reasonable desires), we again should try to
   minimize negative impact.

   For example, when a decision improves the Internet for end users in
   one jurisdiction, but at the cost of potential harm to others
   elsewhere, that is not a good trade-off.  As such, we design the
   Internet for the pessimal environment; if a user can be harmed, they
   probably will be, somewhere.

   There may be cases where genuine technical need requires compromise.
   However, such trade-offs are carefully examined and avoided when
   there are alternate means of achieving the desired goals.  If they
   cannot be, these choices and reasoning ought to be thoroughly
   documented.

4.5.  Deprioritizing Internal Needs

   There are several needs that are very visible to us as specification
   authors but should explicitly not be prioritized over the needs of
   end users.

   These include convenience for document editors, IETF process matters,
   and "architectural purity" for its own sake.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

6.  Security Considerations

   This document does not have any direct security impact; however,
   failing to prioritize end users might well affect their security
   negatively in the long term.

7.  Informative References

   [RFC0001]  Crocker, S., "Host Software", RFC 1, DOI 10.17487/RFC0001,
              April 1969, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1>.

   [RFC3724]  Kempf, J., Ed., Austein, R., Ed., and IAB, "The Rise of
              the Middle and the Future of End-to-End: Reflections on
              the Evolution of the Internet Architecture", RFC 3724,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3724, March 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3724>.

   [RFC3935]  Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF",
              BCP 95, RFC 3935, DOI 10.17487/RFC3935, October 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3935>.

   [RFC6973]  Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
              Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
              Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6973>.

   [RFC7230]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
              RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.

   [RFC7258]  Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
              Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, DOI 10.17487/RFC7258, May
              2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7258>.

   [RFC7288]  Thaler, D., "Reflections on Host Firewalls", RFC 7288,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7288, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7288>.

   [RFC7624]  Barnes, R., Schneier, B., Jennings, C., Hardie, T.,
              Trammell, B., Huitema, C., and D. Borkmann,
              "Confidentiality in the Face of Pervasive Surveillance: A
              Threat Model and Problem Statement", RFC 7624,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7624, August 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7624>.

   [RFC7754]  Barnes, R., Cooper, A., Kolkman, O., Thaler, D., and E.
              Nordmark, "Technical Considerations for Internet Service
              Blocking and Filtering", RFC 7754, DOI 10.17487/RFC7754,
              March 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7754>.

   [RFC8752]  Thomson, M. and M. Nottingham, "Report from the IAB
              Workshop on Exploring Synergy between Content Aggregation
              and the Publisher Ecosystem (ESCAPE)", RFC 8752,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8752, March 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8752>.

   [TUSSLE]   Clark, D., Sollins, K., Wroclawski, J., and R. Braden,
              "Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow's Internet",
              DOI 10.1145/633025.633059, August 2002,
              <https://groups.csail.mit.edu/ana/Publications/PubPDFs/
              Tussle2002.pdf>.

IAB Members at the Time of Approval

   Internet Architecture Board members at the time this document was
   approved for publication were:

      Jari Arkko
      Alissa Cooper
      Stephen Farrell
      Wes Hardaker
      Ted Hardie
      Christian Huitema
      Zhenbin Li
      Erik Nordmark
      Mark Nottingham
      Melinda Shore
      Jeff Tantsura
      Martin Thomson
      Brian Trammell

Acknowledgements

   Many discussions influenced this document, both inside and outside of
   the IETF and IAB.  In particular, Edward Snowden's comments regarding
   the priority of end users at IETF 93 and the HTML5 Priority of
   Constituencies were both influential.

   Many people gave feedback and input, including Harald Alvestrand,
   Mohamed Boucadair, Joe Hildebrand, Lee Howard, Russ Housley, Niels
   ten Oever, Mando Rachovitsa, John Klensin, and Eliot Lear.

Author's Address

   Mark Nottingham
   Prahran VIC
   Australia

   Email: mnot@mnot.net
   URI:   https://www.mnot.net/


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/