From F2F Task Force
Revision as of 08:13, 15 December 2016 by Sysop (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

The FTF - fringe to fringe - concepts orignates in the TYMNET model and, for the Internet architecture in the RFC 1958 of Brian Carpenter which assigns the end to end to the internet protocol set, while "Everything else should be done at the fringes".

Within the end to end Internet context, this meant first that everything atop should begin as fringe to fringe extensions, and possibly proceed to fringe and fringe multi-relations. To deploy a TYMNET approach over Internet datagrams, and further on extend it to intelligrams, once introduced a user sided presentation layer six, was the Intlnet response to the double multilinguistic challenge of langtags and of internationalized domain names in its perligent multimatics intellition processing context.

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.