20190608 IAB Mail exchange on the "End User" Draft
De LRtech
Version du 23 juillet 2019 à 14:52 par Sysop (discuter | contributions)
(Please note that some typos have been corrected)
This debate is in relation with the IAB Adoption of [ draft-nottingham-for-the-users]
At 18:07 08/06/2019, JFC Morfin wrote:
|
- John,
- I've also looked through your response and, while I'm sympathetic to the concern you have raised that (as I understand it) might affect the pertinence of an IAB document on the matter, I am concerned in a far more fundamental, quasi-architectonical, problem I don't know if it could not, in turn, affect your concern.
|
- My concern is architectonical, i.e., before any architectural issue but at the same time post-architectural. I explain: since October 1st, 2016 I consider the cyberspace to be freed from what I perceived as its 1986 de-facto innovation "internet-moratorium" that out-lawed my job, as Director, Tymnet/Extended Services.
- Note:
- Extended services are network services extending data transport to data processing on the fly (what [networked] OPESes could partly do). They were in opposition to the deregulation pre-requisite that transport and treatment would be separated businesses. That was to prevent cross-subsidization: at that pre-Mama Bell divestiture time, Telcos feared that Tymshare, GE, and their likes, could use cloud/time-sharing revenues to competitively cross-subsidize data transport). In addition XS can also involve the "mneme" (i.e. the present network of past traces that make the possible of something into its future, an Ampère concept that delineates the person, the impact of an event, a culture, an active repository, the contexture of the context).
- Customers were Visa, Banks, TWA and airlines, etc.
- Please note the term "customers" that, in turn, could service internal and external users, processes and stand-alone operations. The "end-user" in Mark Nottingham's vision can be an autonomous bot. The European Parliament has voted a demand to the Government Council to come with a legislation on this issue. In 1986 they were not ready to do so, but my deparment (and "my" PTTs) were :-) !.
- Since 2016 I came back to the less internet constrained cyberspace, I tried to protect the/our future at the IETF (e.g., the langtag issue – that categorize linguistic agoras (open user classes and host groups)).
- To better illustrate/make understand this, I found a deeply discussed clear explanation in the XVIIe century debate over sovereignty and state, something that rules our lives, and we are actually resuming here.
- The fundamental thinkers are Machiavelli (identified multitude), Bodin (identified sovereignty) and Hobbes (identified people and the modern state we still currently live under). The Hobbes' perspective (1642) is that humanity was able to copy the art of God in creating a huge artificial and fictive man: State. Whose soul is sovereignty. That artificially fictive man/state was, in turn, able to create "the people" from the multitude of people.
- Quotes detailing the reasons why are:
- "one can not say that an action made in a multitude of assembled people is the action of the multitude."
- "It turns out that the multitude is not unity and remains a summation of atomic units while the people are the retroactive outcome of the establishment of sovereignty-one."
- "The citizens, when they rebel against the State, are the multitude against the people."
- This means that Lincoln’s "Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth" is something Mark Nottingham does not rule out but want to update.
- For a very simple reason: up to now we only knew a hierarchical way to build peoples, in assembling bottom-people/end-users. Now we have to introduce and document a new horizontal one: networking. And because the IETF is documenting concepts that "have little to do with the technology that's possible, and much to do with the technology that we choose to create" (RFC 3539) that "allow new networking technology to be introduced into the existing catenet while remaining functionally compatible with existing systems" (IEN 48).
- And what the network technology introduce in human organigrams is people to people, pair to pair relations; and multistakeholdership. For a bunch of reasons because "the Internet is a global phenomenon. The people interested in its evolution are from every culture (including not geeks) under the sun and from all walks of life." (RFC 3935). There are no more end-users; everyone is a "core-user" of his own networking. None may know the expertise of all the others in their various networking perspectives: some bring their knowledge about technology, others about UX, others about SX (social expertise), others about semiotic multilinguistic, others about what their discipline or their surviving, or their strategy or their art expect from their networking. The internet is about ID (interdisciplinarity).
- This is what the internet designers of a "large, heterogeneous collection of interconnected systems that can be used for communication [and processings from my extended services pov.] of many different types between any interested parties connected to it" (RFC 3935) must first consider. This is what the IAB has to discover for them, document to them and make sure they accept; because the inter-RFC 6852 global community technical compatibility has to be dealt through the IAB.
|
- Correct. But read what Brian Carpenter and others say. They refer to their time vision of the end to end internet, so this is correct for them to speak about end-users the way they do. OSI designers (Louis Pouzin's team) were about the network to networks since 1974 (as was Vint Cerf since 1978, who was calling for an end to end able to evoluate, what the "status-quo" 1986 freeze prevented). Myself, as Tymnet, I am about agoras to agoras (whatever how many CPUs they may count from one to billions).
|
- RFC 6852 got rid of that. The IETF is part of a broad standardization collusion 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 market and consumer, thereby driving innovation. Innovation, in turn, contributes to the creation of new markets and the growth and expansion of existing markets."
- Except that this collusion does not make sense if it does not extends to every market and therefore to every consumer who in turn is a producer. This is why there only are core-users co-standardizers of "every venue under the sun."
|
- Except that, IMHO, it has not fully understood the impact of RFC 6852, if I judge from its responses to my appeals and this debate. This is why I explained that I would only consider the "catenet" layers that the internet infrastructure was able to provide me as an interconnected user ("IUser") and build my own "global community" technology over it.
- As such, I am considering "sets of agoras of agoras" using the no-presentation layer "network of network". Either the IETF is neutral or favorable to me when it does help or does not endanger my informed use of its layers. It is a pain when it plans otherwise. The solution I found was the iucg@ietf.org mailing list, not for the internet users, but for the IETF users (also IUsers). Unfortunately, this list is not much active, but I would be glad transferring it to Mark Nottingham as I have much sympathy as an involved user ("IUser") in many of his points.
|
- Correct!!! The IAB in this situation is in the position to offer forward-looking architectural advice about the way 2020 reading of IETF previous engagements means (so they might amend them).
|
- IMHO the real question is ontological. What is the internet for who? That has become a matter that spans the entire philosophical, technological, political, economical, etc. spectrum. Because these disciplines are discussing points, they first qualify as philosophical objects, technological issues, political subjects, economic matters, etc. and that diktyological (diktyology is the name of the network discipline) spans them all.
|
- IMHO again - this is a matter I work on for 40 years since introducing the INTLFILE that grandfathered the root file - we are dealing here with interlinked ("everything is interconnected") issues from a too limited point of view. The IAB comes from the four layers of TCP/IP. Even CCITT’s OSI 7 layers did not fulfill the job (but dramatically simplifies it with layer six, presentation). The "Tymnet/Extended Systems" with its 12+ layers helped better, But the "+" (presentation layer uniform space) is the field for interdisciplinary investigation.
- Now, is everything blocked?
- No. Because of Brian Carpenter RFC 1958 architectural PLUS (not the same +, the one I started to check as internet compatible at the WG/IDNA2008 - "plugged layers on the user side", continuing the network model on the receiving fringe) solution.
- The RFC 3935 states: "The network's job is to transmit datagrams as efficiently and flexibly as possible. Everything else should be done at the fringes."
- This is what everyone expects from IETF and what IAB should help it to achieve.
- The fringe to fringe IUser can then take over and use the internet end-to-end datagrams as his intersem fringe-to-fringe intelligrams.
- This is OK with me so far. Except that I am working on low civil society "no-budget" and I am slow at developing my intersem architecture over the internet catenet.
- I hope this may help.
- Best
- jfc
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
x
|
x
|