<html>
<body>
At 18:59 29/11/2015, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font color="#FE2617"><b>
Third</b></font>, challenging the Internet architecture seems to be a red
line, something that no multistakeholder/status quo champion could ever
discuss, debate, think of. They should think twice. And not because of
the ITU, but </blockquote><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">1. because of the US obstructive
stance, <br>
2. and because technology calls for innovation and
disruption</blockquote><br><br>
JC, <br><br>
Let me be clear about this in order to not create unnecessary confusion
or dispute. The <b>red line</b> is about the <b>Internet </b>medium layer
architecture vs its <b>Catenet</b> basis. This is not a question of
technical dogma but rather of technical focus, options, experience,
capacity and societal/political stability. <br><br>
A. I will explain why it is a UNIX/NETIX perspectives opposition<br>
B. I will shortly explain the root of the confusion<br>
C. I will explain the current open trend<br>
D. I will eventually consider Willi’s position<br><br>
<br>
<b><u>A. the UNIX/NETIX opposition<br><br>
</u></b>The internet (cf. IEN 48
<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien48.txt">
https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien48.txt</a>) has architected the
Internet project as the ARPANET catenet, along the Louis Pouzin
terminology understood by ARPA as "roughly [meaning] "the
collection of packet networks which are connected together.""
Vint explains that it is not enough for a practical implementation and
sets the objectives and constraints of an ARPANET catenet internetting.
He then documents his own objectives. There are two targets and one key
contribution.<br><br>
<br>
1. <b>Vint Cerf's first objective</b> (specific to the internet use of
the catenet): <br><br>
to permit the <b>internal</b> technology of a [TCP/IP] data network to be
optimized for local operation and to be readily interconnected into an
organized catenet. This means that everyone must use an inter-network
optimized technology. And the IP local addressing scheme must extend to
the global network. This differs from the two other parallel
contributions: <br><br>
1.1. by the ITU: to build a catenet through an <b>external</b> technology
(X.75) optimized to support local technology interconnections, with a
local technology (X.25) optimized to use that international technology
and using its global purpose X.121 addressing scheme.<br><br>
1.2. by Tymnet (which was the only internationally used technology from
1977 to 1987) of which architecture used a meta-technology and addressing
scheme approach to interconnect every local and international protocol
and addressing scheme, and eventually services (my
responsibility).<br><br>
<br>
2. <b>Vint Cerf's fundamental contribution<br><br>
</b>This is Vint's main contribution because it is universal. He states:
"The term "local" is used in a loose sense, here, since it
means "peculiar to the particular network" rather than "a
network of limited geographic extent." A satellite-based network
such as the ARPA packet satellite network, therefore, has
"local" characteristics (e.g. broadcast operation) even though
it spans many thousands of square miles geographically speaking."
This, together with Louis Pouzin's catenetting actually defined glocality
as a local virtual network global reach. I.e. what I call a VGN (virtual
<b>glocal </b>network). This is something difficult for IETF people to
consider because they are only referred to twice in RFCs as being outside
of the "end to end".<br><br>
2.1. In RFC 1958 (internet architecture): "The network's job is to
transmit datagrams as efficiently and flexibly as possible. Everything
else should be done at the fringes."<br><br>
2.2. In RFC 5895 (mapping characters in IDNA2008): "It should be
noted that this document<b> does not</b> specify the behavior of a
protocol that appears "<b>on the wire</b>". It describes an
operation that is to be applied to user input in order to prepare that
user input for use in an "on the network" protocol. As
<b>unusual </b>as this may be for a document concerning Internet
protocols, it is necessary to describe this operation for implementors
... This because local typing, etc. is to be supported by local
subsidiarity in order "to reduce the surprise for users and is
likely to be slightly (or sometimes<b> radically</b>) different depending
on the<b> locale</b> of the user".<br><br>
This means that mapping/unmapping is to happen outside "of the
wire" (end to end), at the fringe. IDNA2008 may call for fringe to
fringe operations. Those are "OSI presentation layer six"
operations. However, there is no "presentation layer six" in
the internet layer stake. Hence, the possibility of presentation layer
six based "network application services". I called them
“Extended Services" in 1984, when I created the Tymnet/Extended
Services department. They came above the TCP like internet "value
added" services, above the IP like catenet "basic
services". Problem: one of the T/ES services was to transparently
map 17 million IP addresses (RFC 923) to X.121 addresses in order to
deploy its global applications as network open services rather than edge
proprietary businesses.<br><br>
This extended addressing service not only allowed global competition with
the US, but it also put the Internet in bad shape because the
presentation layer six concerns security, languages, and intelligent
exchanges (through formats). The issue was architectonical: was EDP to be
computer (US UNIX industry) or network (Tymnet/PTT NETIX) centered?
<br><br>
In addition, it was a national security issue: UNIX internet systems had
no protection against non-US protected accesses established through T/ES.
It was also a strategic political/industrial issue within the
deregulation context where AT&T was dismantled, killing its own X.25
technology development. Tymnet then started proposing X.75/TCP/IP/Tymnet
technology to the seven FCC regulated "Baby Bells" (Regional
Bell Operating Companies) the same as they had already leased and
operated the five FCC regulated IRCs (international records carriers) and
all the other foreign Operators and PTTs (except BT) throughout the
world.<br><br>
As a result, the Tymnet 100% parent company was purchased by McDonnell
Douglas, the military-industrial leader of the time. They closed my T/ES
by mid-1986 and sent their own people to the first IETF meeting. The
digisphere had to be NSA-compatible.<br><br>
<br>
3. <b>Vint Cerf’s second objective<br><br>
</b>Vint Cerf's second motivation was "to allow new networking
technology to be introduced into the existing catenet while remaining
functionally compatible with existing systems. This allows for the phased
introduction of new, and obsolescence of old, networks without requiring
a global simultaneous change." <br><br>
In blunt and clear words, it was to seamlessly expand new TCP/IP features
in order to compete and overcome the Tymnet and ITU's X.75/25
capabilities.<br><br>
In other words, to do worse than me! They fired me and froze Vint's
ambitions: this was the "statUS-quo" strategy.<br><br>
However, Vint Cerf persisted, created ISOC, chaired ICANN, and joined
Google. His TCP/IP technology was more adequate to handle open source
than Tymnet and more versatile that the ITU approach. It called for 25
years but he eventually reached the verges of his second objective,
powerfully threatening the status quo. While the WCIT was to show that
the various foreign NSAs objected to the US NSA's global
surveillance.<br><br>
As a result, the State Department supported the ISOC/GSN cooperation, the
OpenStand statement, the minority vote in Dubai, the Snowdenia, the NTIA
statement, the Lynn St Amour/Don Tapscott report, etc. that eventually
led to the ICANN reshuffling, and to Jari Arko's
<a href="https://www.ietf.org/blog/2015/01/taking-a-step-towards-iana-transition/">
2015/01/08</a> blog post stating :<br><br>
"<b>Our</b> work is not yet complete. There are a number of steps
still in front of us. They include the following:
<ul>
<li>Both the numbers and names communities need to complete their
proposals. We at the IETF will continue to engage with them with their
work, just as they assisted us with ours.
<li>Later, the IANA Transition Coordination Group
(<a href="http://ianacg.org">ICG</a>) will assemble a complete proposal
and gather community feedback on the result. When ready, they will submit
the final proposal to the NTIA.
<li><b>The NTIA must then consider and approve the proposal. </b>
<li>Finally, it must be implemented. "
</ul>An IETF/WG on the IANA Transition had supported this IETF allegiance
to the NTIA, hence its decision to become the technical body of the
"GAFAMUSCC" RFC 6852 "global community" embracing
"a modern paradigm for standards where the economics of global
markets, fueled by technological advancements, drive global deployment of
standards regardless of their formal status. In this paradigm standards
support interoperability, foster global competition, are developed
through an open participatory process, and are voluntarily adopted
globally. These voluntary standards serve as building blocks for products
and services targeted at meeting the needs of the <b>market</b> and
<b>consumer</b>, thereby driving innovation. Innovation in turn
contributes to the creation of new markets and the growth and expansion
of existing markets."<br><br>
I appealed this with the IESG and IAB in order to make sure that this was
the true consensual decision of the IETF.
<a href="http://iuwg.net/index.php/History#Evolution">
http://iuwg.net/index.php/History#Evolution</a>. With the consequence
documented there: the decision to start an XLIBRE
(<a href="http://xlibre.net/">http://xlibre.net</a>) RFC 6852 global
community for those wishing to research and test aside from the US/Google
technically correct use of the world digital ecosystem. Thinking of
themselves as their own VGN masters or Intelligent, Internet Users
(IUsers), rather than as ICANN (IN) DNS Class consumers.<br><br>
<br>
<b><u>B. The root of the confusion<br><br>
</u></b>The root of the confusion is that, as I indicated it, the ARPA,
Tymnet and PTT models covered both the lower and upper layers. Therefore,
people used PSS (packet switch PTT services) and the Internet as a global
digital solution without differentiating the layers.<br><br>
This was increased by the habit to confuse the internet and the
web.<br><br>
Today, most of the World Digital Ecosystem Governance considerations are
internet centric. With laws around the world not making a difference
between "Internet", "the Internet", "the
internet" and "internet" for what is actually the Catenet
Model for the ARPANET-internetworking.<br><br>
In addition, there is an addressing system confusion between
<b>centralized</b> (Copernican, geocentric), <b>decentralized</b>
(Newtonian, heliocentric) for what is <b>distributed</b> (Einsteinian,
cosmological).<br><br>
<br>
<b><u>C. The current open trend<br><br>
</u></b>There certainly is a US effort to build on the 1986/2012 momentum
to keep industrial, commercial, and political control of the WDE (world
digital ecosystem). However, experience and technology show that this is
a BUG. This bug is to want to "Be Unilaterally Global". This
was a 1986 misunderstanding due to the 1977 push to the international
catenet given by the FCC (VAN license to Tymnet and Telenet and naming to
Tymnet). However, this was only a US "go" that matched the
European "OKs" simultaneously gathered by Robert Tréhin (head
of the Tymnet European Operations, TEO) in building the public catenet.
In essence, an international network is multilateral. Communications’
multilaterality is managed by the ITU. <br><br>
When we interconnected the Internet catenet to the public global catenet,
the US had to protect it from the non-UNIX systems. This led to the US
strategy of replacing the ITU by the NTIA. <br><br>
Firewalls have been deployed. IAB has eventually engaged in working on a
secure protocol stack. It is time now for the BUG to be fixed. <br><br>
Actually this is urgent. Before the IoT deploys significantly because, by
nature, it has to be BUG proof. No one anywhere in the world wants their
fridge to be under US NSA and Google surveillance. <br><br>
However, the way it is made must not hurt the network development and
stability. So Vint Cerf’s second objective can only be deployed by
subsidiarity. To develop and deploy additional compatible services that
will eventually be able to replace the existing architecture.<br><br>
The XLIBRE trend seems to be to: <br><br>
1. capitalize on IP for the catenet for the basic services.<br>
2. consider alternatives to the internet "TCP" added value.
This has started with XMPP, named content networking, SDN, etc. <br>
3. develop and deploy "intersem" extended services experiments
for a multi-vendor LIBRE (LIBRE even of the Libre) smart
interoperability.<br><br>
The interest of this is that it respects the experience acquired since
the late 1960s. This is what I call "reconsiderative"
innovation, which is neither “incrementative” nor disruptive. If I would
start it all again, how would I do it, now that I can use all that I have
learned and others have developed since then?<br><br>
<br>
<b><u>D. Willi’s position<br><br>
</u></b>More often than notWilli’s position does not make IETF technical
sense. <br><br>
There are two ways to react:<br><br>
- In bashing Willi for his lack of technical understanding.<br>
- In protesting against the IETF for not publishing standards that:<br>
--- Either permit developers to meet Willi’s technical needs<br>
--- Or documenting their RFCs within a graded framework the first layer
of which is understandable by Internet Users (IUsers) without needing to
be smart Intelligent Users (IUsers).<br><br>
You will note that my language uses the same term (“IUser”) in both
cases, and in many other cases such as is the case for
(<a href="http://xlibre.net/index.php/IUse" eudora="autourl">
http://xlibre.net/index.php/IUse</a>) individual, informed, independent,
innovative, industrious, inventive, insatiable, imaginative, impartial,
impecunious, inevitable, inflexible, insisting, insupportable,
inexhaustible, ingenious, interactive, interdisciplinary, interested,
interrogator, interventionist, irreducible, irritating, etc. lead
user.<br><br>
For a merchant, the customer is the problem, for a technician it is the
user. And the customer and the user are king. I am not sure I understand
what Willi may ask, but I am sure I am to consider it carefully because
IETF and technically correct people are sustainable and “incrementative”,
Willi asks us to be disruptive and what I call reconsiderative. By the
way, this is what the IAB reconsideration of the protocol stack is
exactly about. <br><br>
The real need is for all of the Willis of the world, which Willi
represents, feel that their dataspheres are secure, at ease with their
networking experience, and the master of their own glocal
digitality.<br><br>
jfc </body>
</html>