[e2e] Fie on future internet

[Michael Welzl]

Hi Jon, all,

Shouldn't we, as researchers, ideally be left alone to do whatever
we want (as long as we produce some good, measurable output
for those who pay us), in the hope that good stuff happens?

Then, isn't the "future Internet" an entry ticket into the "do whatever
you want" world that just makes "do whatever you want" look good
and interesting to funding bodies? Do we really want funding bodies
restrain what we do by announcing much more restrictive schemes?

You cite Trilogy as a project doing good stuff. From their webpage:
"Trilogy is a collaborative research project within the ICT theme of  
the 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission that  
contributes to the objective "Network of the Future" of the Work  
Programme."

- shouldn't we be glad that such a funding scheme exists, allowing them
to do their thing?

I'd say yes, and Jon, I thought that you would be the first person
to also say so... thus, while I understand that one can get
bored from reading "clean slate yum-di-dum" again and again,
I'm quite surprised that you would make a statement like that.
(let alone Keshav suggesting to use it as an editorial!)


On a side note, mentioning the architectural principle of "Abstraction"
in conjunction with the Internet is a joke. If I'd have to pick one  
major
thing that's clearly wrong about the Internet, then it's the *lack of*
abstraction. Abstraction in the stack would allow you to exchange
the actual elements in lower (that is, below the application) layers -
an application opening a TCP connection or sending a UDP packet
to a specified IP address isn't a very abstract concept, is it?

Cheers,
Michael


On Feb 28, 2010, at 4:27 PM, Jon Crowcroft wrote:

> I spend a lot of time reviewing
> stuff about the future internet
> then its raining on a sunday afternoon
> so i wrote down what i really think:-
> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~jac22/out/fie.pdf
>
> then i played the guitar to clam down
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsJD5_nX5RE
>
> j.