Difference between revisions of "Introduction"

From F2F Task Force
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 6: Line 6:
 
|}
 
|}
  
The consideration of the '''INTERPLUS''' architecture was proposed in 2008 by '''JFC Morfin''', in parallel to the '''IETF/WG.IDNA2008''' (on internationalized domain names), as part of his exploratory work on '''mecalingualization''' (''cobotic language'') and '''multilingualization''' (''languages cybernetics''). This open Task Force is to address the need for a presentation layer uniform system ('''PLUS''') to "re-define" the internet in continuity with its Vint Cerf's initial objectives :
 
  
 +
The consideration of the '''INTERPLUS''' architecture was proposed in 2008 by '''JFC Morfin''', in parallel to the '''IETF/WG.IDNA2008''' (on internationalized domain names), as part of his exploratory work on '''mecalingualization''' (''cobotic language'') and '''multilingualization''' (''languages cybernetics''). This open Task Force is to address the need for a presentation layer uniform system ('''PLUS''') to "re-define" the internet in continuity with its Vint Cerf's initial objectives (https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien48.txt July 1978, IEN 48):
 +
<br/><br/>
 
#to permit the internal technology of a data network to be optimized for local operation <ref> Vint Cerf explains: "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."</ref> but also permit these locally optimized nets to be readily interconnected into an organized catenet. <ref> The same, Vint Cerf explains: "The term "catenet" was introduced by L. Pouzin in 1974 in his early paper on packet network interconnection [1].  The U.S. DARPA research project on this subject has adopted the term to mean roughly "the collection of packet networks which are connected together." </ref> This is now achieved.<br/><br/>
 
#to permit the internal technology of a data network to be optimized for local operation <ref> Vint Cerf explains: "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."</ref> but also permit these locally optimized nets to be readily interconnected into an organized catenet. <ref> The same, Vint Cerf explains: "The term "catenet" was introduced by L. Pouzin in 1974 in his early paper on packet network interconnection [1].  The U.S. DARPA research project on this subject has adopted the term to mean roughly "the collection of packet networks which are connected together." </ref> This is now achieved.<br/><br/>
# 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. This of what JFC Morfin was in charge in 1984 when he was able to "green light" the connection of the Internet to the international public packet switch network under Tymnet technology. This what has to be "re-defined" (see initial quote) now the risks introduced by RFC 923 have been fully understood and the technology permits to redeploy a solution.  
+
# 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. This of what JFC Morfin was in charge in 1984 when he was able to "green light" the connection of the Internet to the international public packet switch network under Tymnet technology. This what has to be "re-defined" (see initial quote) now the risks introduced by RFC 923 and the virtual network "glocality" as introduced by Vint Cerf (cf. first note below)  have been fully understood and the technology permits to redeploy a VGN <ref> VGN: virtual glocal network, the possibility to virtually replicate the global ressources being to be locally used. The "[http://perligent.com perligent] layer on the user side". </ref> based solution.  
 
<br/>
 
<br/>
::''<small><references/></small>''
+
''<small><references/></small>''
  
  

Revision as of 21:40, 7 December 2016

"I think there is considerable room for innovation and standardization at a conceptual "presentation" layer - such a layer was not defined in the Internet while some effort to define on was in the OSI system. As applications have become increasingly internationalized, it is arguable that codifying presentation concepts may prove useful. Some might go so far as to suggest re-inventing the system of binding strings to internet addresses (what the DNS does). While that path was not chosen in the present DNS-IDNA2003-IDNA2008 sequence, it might be considered in the future and in my opinion, it is in these areas (presentation and re-definition) that much of your work, jefsey, has relevance."

Vint Cerf


The consideration of the INTERPLUS architecture was proposed in 2008 by JFC Morfin, in parallel to the IETF/WG.IDNA2008 (on internationalized domain names), as part of his exploratory work on mecalingualization (cobotic language) and multilingualization (languages cybernetics). This open Task Force is to address the need for a presentation layer uniform system (PLUS) to "re-define" the internet in continuity with its Vint Cerf's initial objectives (https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien48.txt July 1978, IEN 48):

  1. to permit the internal technology of a data network to be optimized for local operation [1] but also permit these locally optimized nets to be readily interconnected into an organized catenet. [2] This is now achieved.

  2. 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. This of what JFC Morfin was in charge in 1984 when he was able to "green light" the connection of the Internet to the international public packet switch network under Tymnet technology. This what has to be "re-defined" (see initial quote) now the risks introduced by RFC 923 and the virtual network "glocality" as introduced by Vint Cerf (cf. first note below) have been fully understood and the technology permits to redeploy a VGN [3] based solution.


  1. Vint Cerf explains: "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."
  2. The same, Vint Cerf explains: "The term "catenet" was introduced by L. Pouzin in 1974 in his early paper on packet network interconnection [1]. The U.S. DARPA research project on this subject has adopted the term to mean roughly "the collection of packet networks which are connected together."
  3. VGN: virtual glocal network, the possibility to virtually replicate the global ressources being to be locally used. The "perligent layer on the user side".



The opportunity


The idea was to use the work on internationalization, initiated and moderated there by John Klensin, to

  • discuss the architectonic issues related to the support of diversity by the internet architecture - as defined by RFC 1958 and RFC 3439,
  • and build atop the findings of a working group chaired by Vint Cerf and gathering top internet architects.


The initial conflict


The architectural considerations developed by the WG put JFC Morfin in radical disagreement, as

  • it confined everything within the end to end space
  • and gave control to technology and engineers over human culture through constrained uses limitations.

This made the network non-neutral to human languages ; and machines to influence humanity. This was not acceptable.


The final consensus


Therefore, consensus was reached rather quickly once Paul Hoffman and Pete Resnick introduced the RFC 5895 draft.

The very nature of the RFC 5895 is well explained in its introduction:

It should be noted that this document does not specify the behavior of a protocol that appears "on the wire". 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 unusual as this may be for a document concerning Internet protocols, it is necessary to describe this operation for implementors who may have designed around the original IDNA protocol (herein referred to as IDNA2003), which conflates this user-input operation into the protocol.

This RFC was here introducing the principle of subsidiarity as the way for the internet architectural environment to deal with external complexity (in this case linguistic complexity).


The consequences


This consensus permitted JFC Morfin to accept the IDNA2008 RFCs and welcome the possibility to build over them:

  • to explore the implementation of architectural capacities able to support his Tymnet's Extended Services/Systems area which had been politically frozen in 1986 through the "status quo" industry's attitude (in spite of the second motivation of the initial internet project).
  • to initiate the PLUS (Presentation Layer/Plugged Layers on the User Side) architectural encapsulation of the Internet, as a middle layers networking system over Louis Pouzin's catenet through "IUI" (Intelligent Use Interfaces).

However, it was not until 2012 (renewal of the International Telecommunication Treaty) that industrial and political context starter to move in a way permitting to consider the PLUS architecture as an addition rather than as a contradiction to the normative paradigm.


The contextual evolution


JFC Morfin has now freed himself from the IETF, after they chose to become the technical counsel of the ICANN RFC 6852 Global Community. He has engaged in the concept of an Experimentation dedicated, and ICANN ICP-3 experimentation rules abiding, LIBRE [1]RFC 6852 Open Stand Global Community (XLIBRE). This "OSGC" wants to maintain a good technical and architectural relationship within "the permissionless innovation" spirit it documents. The following mail exchange with Vint Cerf in 2009 illustrates the basis of this peer to peer cooperation (and coopetition when considering the societal differences between Google and LIBRE).

  • LIBRE- in upper case letters means “FREE including from Libre”. It concerns multimatics, the agoric (from Greek agora: forum, main place) interapplication systemic between masters that may use free or proprietary software as long as they can interoperate through the infinite “binary yonder”. This means the support of users’ free choice.