RFC8890



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: [email protected]
  URI:   https://www.mnot.net/