<html>
<body>
At 02:39 30/01/2014, Anne van Kesteren wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">However, I think I have been
convinced by this thread that UTS #46<br>
might be good enough as replacement for IDNA2003. Once it has been<br>
clarified per the feedback I submitted I will incorporate it in the<br>
URL Standard. It's unfortunate that even #46 is implemented in<br>
different ways. :-(</blockquote><br>
Anne,<br><br>
I am interested in the pragmatic "InterUse" aspects that I need
(cf. infra). If you bear with me a minute, I will explain how I
understand where the whole system stands, how it is probably evolving,
and where the practical solution should be or where you could locate them
and how, with who it will have to be discussed, and self organization
will propagate.<br>
<br>
1. INTERNETTING POJECT<br><br>
The internet has an architectonical doctrine (IEN 48), architectural plan
(IAB), technological author (IETF), documentary embodiment (RFCs),
practical operation guidance (BCPs), registries (RIRs), operators (ISPs),
enabling protocols (code) in order to answer its motivations (or more if
possible).<br><br>
The author of IEN 48 is the chair of this WG. We, therefore, have through
him a remarkable continuity. I see in these texts (IEN 48 and the WG of
this charter) -
<a href="http://iucg.org/wiki/IEN_48_-_The_Catenet_Model_for_Internetworking">
http://iucg.org/wiki/IEN_48_-_The_Catenet_Model_for_Internetworking</a>
and
<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/idnabis/charters">
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/idnabis/charters</a> - a remarkably simple,
robust, and efficient logic that I qualify as: <br><br>
- "internet": proof of Louis Pouzin's catenet concept on a
global plane (i.e. non-formatted ASCII text oriented interconnectivity
and access). Completed.<br><br>
- "intertech": exploration of a multitechnology support by this
proof of concept, i.e. the addition of the layer six presentation/Tymnet
equivalent. Missing, but many uncoupled applications (e.g. Web).<br><br>
- "interuse": "an improved means to produce and use stable
and unambiguous IDN identifiers" for everyone (network access +
machine technology + people culture). (cf. RFC 3271).<br><br>
<br>
2. THE IDNA SUPPORT <br><br>
The problem of this WG was to address the interuse stratum without the
intertech stratum having been coherently documented, tested, and proven.
This is why:<br><br>
2.1. initially I said that I would support the WG work on the internet
stratum in order to support my own additions that I called the ML-DNS (ML
having multiple meanings corresponding to various multilateral,
multiledger, multilayer, multilingual, etc. aspects).<br><br>
2.2. I opposed Vint Cerf when he attempted a layer violation in trying to
incorporate layer six tasks in the end to end internet architecture side.
<br><br>
2.3. This was elegantly addressed by Pete Resnick and Paul Hoffman's
future RFC 5895 which "unusually" exemplified in an IETF layers
document how the intertech strata could interface the internet
specifications and requirement. Actually it meant that no fringe to
fringe (cf. RFC 1958) MUST was incorporated in an end to end
RFC.<br><br>
Today, the problems we face are the practical interuse problems while the
intertech is still in limbo as a set of post-presentation systems (such
as the Web).<br><br>
<br>
3. THE INTERTECH: PL6 and IUI <br><br>
I was reluctant to work on this intertech stratum because these things
demand time (and money) before being commonly understood, worked on, and
tested, etc. The huge risk was to be passed by crime and or merchants
(RFC 3869) because a quick and *dirty* solution calls for very limited
work. The difficulty was to avoid the dirty aspect, hence to create a
forum for everyone to be able to work on a matter which is similar, in
continuation, but foreign to the IETF, and to make sure that there was no
area conflict with the IETF and an established bridge (now IUCG@IETF).
The intertech means providing a presentation layer six (PL6) as a
“plugged layer on the user side” (PLUS) as part of IUIs (intelligent use
interfaces). <br><br>
<br>
4. SNOWDEN'S CONTRIBUTION<br><br>
The Post-Snowden general awareness removes the risk of the crime but
increases the merchants' risk (moreover, Vint is now on Google's side
with Harald Alvestrand and Mark Davis). The well-organized OpenStand +
/1NET operation shows it. This distracts people from the real concern:
all the NSAs of the world operate easily on a very vulnerable Internet,
and so the final distrust is in the IETF capacity to produce a robustly
secure technology.<br><br>
<br>
5. INTERSEM CONSIDERATIONS<br><br>
Now, please remember that I come from Tymnet Extended Services, i.e. what
followed in the “internet pile” over theinternet, intertech, and partly
interuse, i.e. is what I call the Intersem, the semiotics stratum, the
internet of ideas/subjects. There, I have two problems that are being
quite discussed right now: <br><br>
- the ONS, i.e. the integration of the IoT, internet of things, into the
picture. I am interested in understanding how Fadi Chehehade, Mathieu
Weil, GS1, etc. are going to proceed and how this will compare with the
IDNS in its relation to the DNS Question: will this help/hamper the
general semantic addressing system and its digital names as we plan it
(strict conformity to the DNS, as IDNA with the addition of CNAME
confusion for class support).<br><br>
- the pseudo "balkanization" of the internet that is a
commercial campaign for the UNICODE
"globalization/internationalization" against the
"nationalizations" of WCIT US opponents which is a risk to
internet stability resulting from the support of the IANA by a structure
with political ambitions.<br><br>
Time has, therefore, come to satisfy everyone through the globalization
of the IANA (ICANN has no real technical interest) within a
multistakeholderist framework. The fragmentation is linked to the dispute
over the root file. The solution is, therefore, to come back to the
initial Tymnet days and suppress the fragmentation risks in making the
top zone data ubiquitous. This is the very simple HomeRoot
project.<br><br>
<br>
6. HOMEROOT POJECT<br><br>
This means empowering everyone with his/her own root file, so everyone is
a multistakeholder on an equal footing. This is the "HomeRoot"
project.<br><br>
1. as long as the data are the same there is no misdirection risk.<br>
2. since the resolution is carried at the user fringe, there is no buffer
cross pollution. Anyway, TTL decrease with AJAX.<br>
3. the root servers will remain in an ever increasing traffic, so that
the NSA will keep some metadata processing .<br>
4. this is a clean technical response to ICE that does not not require
national root server systems.<br>
5. IDNA2008 modules and value added modules (supporting IDNA2003, etc.
variations) will be possible (for example, through IDNAxxxx transition
classes).<br>
6. it will be possible to fully use the class mechanism for a unique
internet with multiple visions.<br>
7. the resolver will serve as a seed for the IUI (Intelligent Use
Interface) to support new services, technologies, network applications,
OPESes, etc.<br><br>
An MS-IG debate (or at least parts of it that IUsers would support) could
advocate:<br><br>
- an integrated installation and parametering the support of a local
resolver on Windows/Linux/Mac<br>
- the publication of hint files by trusted third parties and
governments<br>
- the architectural definition of the IUI within an interpresentation
framework (netix) extending the posix system interface to network
use.<br>
- in order to allow the definition, documentation, and deployment of
format presentation services local operating tasks within the IUI
Interbox transparently to the user application.<br><br>
You will note that this is in pure thinking continuity with IDNA where:
<br><br>
- the user enters the "data" of an identifier in their own
way.<br>
- that are treated by IDNA to become the identifier "tracta"
sent to the DNS <br>
- that become the "capta" received by the other side<br>
- that transformed them into final "tracta" that the
application will be able to use (which may differ from the initial
"data" if the IDNA context is not the same).<br><br>
<br>
7. AGORICS<br><br>
This corresponds to an additional technological and thinking plane, i.e.
in addition to information and communications, to the intellition plane
and to ibits, i.e. intelligently implied bits. An example is what PRISM
delivers as a pertinent reality information system monitor. The
transiting data are possibly treated by OPES on the wire. And that OPES
can be interconnected in underlying ONES (open network of edge systems).
Just to stay in the IDNA context, ONES may coordinate the treatment of
variants in adding syllodata to the datagram/domain name metadata (i.e.
the data between the data, for example between linked data). <br><br>
I fully understand that these considerations are new to most. They just
belong to the continuation of the agoric approach initiated by Norman
Hardy the conceiver of the Tymnet architecture. Agorics is the polylectic
(networked) generalization of Aristotle's logic dialectic (x and y then z
conclusion) and of the Wiener cybernetic monolectic (action then
reaction). Agorics results in emergences related to the networked
syllodatas attractor.<br><br>
I suppose that the MS-IG will soon look seriously at these notions,
spurred by projects such as HomeRoot, PL6 and DARPA cyber grand
challenge. This is in line with the INTLNET MDRS project (metadata
referential/multilingual distributed registry system/service) that I
introduced at the 2006 UNESCO/ITU meeting as a continuation of the
INTLFILE that became the root file. An agoric consideration of the DARPA
CGC shows that real-time tracta correction (i.e. a super semantic
firewall) will demand it to encapsulate an architectony, i.e. a semantic
general model of the universe that is able to understand the context and
the pertinence of the inputs. This kind of system should be able to
correct the IDN related uncertainties.<br><br>
<br>
8. POTENTIALITY FORECAST<br><br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a>I suspect that the political and societal
governance evolution will probably pair with the technical evolution, so
it will probably be an interactive process once users understand that
they can interact with the technical development and that it depends on
no one they could distrust. Distrust will then be only of themselves:
they will consider their involvement as dangerous until some experience
and press show and explain to them that this is not complex. A common
e-literacy issue.<br>
<br>
This is why technical governance is of the essence: it will have to
influence the coordination of the different initiatives and uses of the
internet as a test-bed (cf. ICANN/ICP-3).<br><br>
1. improvement and simplification of BIND installation on Windows
including default parameter files.<br>
2. development and support of an IANA root+ local update tool.<br><br>
3. definition of a network oriented open code license.<br>
4. split of a browser as a virtual machine acting as an IUI +
screen.<br>
5. documentation of the parametering and of the interaction between IUI
(presentation layer 6 project).<br><br>
<br>
This means, in this case, that users and user applications could forget
about scripts that will be handled by the IUI OPES that will punycode
encode/decode the data/capta flow as part of the layer 6 functions.
Synchronization issues if any should then be dealt with a MS enhanced
cooperation to be formed among IUse actors, IANA, IETF, UNICODE, W3C,
etc.<br>
</body>
</html>