Internet DRAFT - draft-iucg-internet-plus
draft-iucg-internet-plus
Network Working Group Jean-Francois C. Morfin
Internet-Draft Intlnet
Intended status: For information March 28, 2012
Expires: September 28, 2012
Internet+ Architectural Framework
draft-iucg-internet-plus-10.txt
Abstract
This memo acknowledges the change of scale in network and people
centricities within the whole digital ecosystem. It shows how the
Internet technology can sustain the resulting network and societal
effects in scaling itself from the end to end Internet to a fringe to
fringe fully optional and compatible Internet+ which strictly
conforms to the Internet architecture and RFCs. It introduces the
Internet+ architectural framework and the IUTF to document it. It
explores a transition that can be seamlessly immediate and will
probably start a complete review and extension of the Internet
schemas towards the semiotic Internet (Intersem).
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 28, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction................................................... 5
2. Discussion..................................................... 6
2.1. Discussing this Draft.................................... 6
2.2. Ethitechnical considerations............................. 6
3. Subsidiarity................................................... 7
3.1. net centricity based success............................. 7
3.2. network effect and people centricity..................... 7
3.3. Centricities scaling..................................... 8
4. Integrality.................................................... 8
5. Network neutrality............................................. 9
6. IUse Area and Community........................................ 9
6.1. Identification of the Internet+.......................... 9
6.2. Identification of the IUI............................... 10
6.3. Identification of the Intersem evolution................ 10
6.4. Identification of the necessity of the IUTF............. 10
6.5. Identification of the IUse area......................... 10
6.6. The IUTF in continuity with the IETF.................... 10
7. The Internet+ architectural framework......................... 11
7.1. The basic Internet+ vision.............................. 11
7.2. Presentation layer...................................... 12
7.3. The Internet+"s networks................................ 13
7.4. Relational Spaces....................................... 14
7.5. Conventions............................................. 14
7.6. Cybship Supervisor...................................... 14
7.7. IGNET................................................... 15
7.8. IUI..................................................... 15
7.9. NETIX................................................... 15
7.10. MDRS................................................... 16
7.11. Relational Spaces...................................... 16
7.12. WDNS................................................... 17
7.13. xIP.................................................... 18
7.14. IPsec.................................................. 18
7.15. Intertest.............................................. 18
7.16. Test IRN/TLDs.......................................... 20
8. Centricities scaling.......................................... 20
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
8.1. WDE stewardship......................................... 22
8.2. Diktyologic considerations.............................. 22
8.3. Multilinguistics........................................ 23
8.4. Natural languages....................................... 23
8.5. Mecalanguages........................................... 24
8.6. IPv6/IDv6 addressing and IDV6........................... 25
8.7. The WDNS................................................ 25
8.7.1. ICANN............................................. 25
8.7.2. Class Root Administrators......................... 26
8.7.3. Internet+ framework WDNS.......................... 26
8.7.4. User Interface specifications..................... 28
8.7.5. Intellectual Property and reserved Root Names..... 28
8.8. Authors" rights protection.............................. 30
8.9. Neighbouring (Related) Right protection................. 30
8.10. Anti-spam protection................................... 30
9. Transition.................................................... 30
9.1. Priorities.............................................. 31
9.2. Detected constraints.................................... 31
9.3. Numbers in Names (NinN)................................. 31
9.4. IRNs.................................................... 32
10. Security considerations...................................... 33
10.1. Enlarged and person centric perspective................ 33
10.2. A new element, i.e. a new area of risk in the Internet architectur 33
10.3. An obsolete IAB Draft to consider?..................... 33
10.4. Browser architectural security concerns................ 34
10.5. Considering the overall impact of Internet+............ 34
11. IANA considerations.......................................... 35
11.1. IUser utilization of the IANA data..................... 35
11.2. IUTF MDRS files........................................ 35
11.3. IETF MDRS Files........................................ 36
12. References................................................... 38
12.1. Normative References................................... 38
12.2. Informative References................................. 39
13. Annex A: Acknowledgments..................................... 40
14. Annex B: WDNS Classes........................................ 41
15. ANNEX C: external presentation summary....................... 42
15.1. Considering the digital globality...................... 42
15.2. The need to adapt...................................... 43
15.3. The Internet+ response................................. 44
Requirements notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
1. Introduction
Eight years ago, the World Summit on the Information Society declared
the common desire and commitment of the people of the world to build
a people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented Information
Society in harnessing the potential of information and communication
technologies while upholding the principle of the sovereign equality
of all States.
This has endorsed a humanity commitment:
* towards a digital people-centricity,
* being "centrada en la persona": the person is the core,
* facilitated by a technology "a caractere humain": man is the
referent of innovation.
Harnessing the communication technology is a long-term progression:
* Forty years ago, for the first time, Tymnet applied a published
packet switch service rate, to bill NLM for their nationwide
remote access through their public network.
* Thirty years ago, the pioneers of the Network Group were
finalizing the IP protocol and the DNS for them to be operational
at the year's end.
* Twenty years ago, the IAB published RFC 1287, considering the
architectural options to address the growth of the Internet.
* Ten years ago, ICANN published its ICP-3 document where it claims
its US delegated control on the CLASS IN root and calls for a
community experimentation on a DNS that no longer uses a unique
authoritative DNS root file.
During that progression, three architectural principles emerged:
* RFC 1958 established the architectural rules of the Internet, as
we know it, as having to adapt along the permanent change
principle.
* RFC 3439 completed it in showing why growth in size increasingly
calls upon the principle of simplicity.
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
* RFC 5890 to 5895 (IDNA2008) conceptually based the support of
linguistic diversity in domain names on the principle of
subsidiarity.
This memo considers the Internet+ framework: it applies these three
principles to scale the Internet capacity to match the challenges
resulting from current usage and expected growth, for example in the
IPv6, multilinguistics, WDNS, and its root areas.
It also explores how the Internet+ IUse community is to test,
document, validate, and deploy this Internet+ framework,
* to complete the passive (what you receive is what I sent), active
(what you receive is what I asked you to receive) and contextual
(what you receive is what you need to receive in your context)
content oriented datacoms stratum
* and to adequately prepare the Intersem (Internet of thoughts -
what you receive is what will make you comprehend what I mean)
semacoms stratum above.
2. Discussion
2.1. Discussing this Draft
This memo is a working version of an IETF Draft of which the
completion, enhancements, and revisions are to be freely discussed on
the iutf@uitf.org or on the iucg@ietf.org mailing lists.
This part should be removed from the final version.
2.2. Ethitechnical considerations
This memo concerns an evolution of the Internet architectural
framework. This evolution embeds the Internet and its users into an
Intelligent Use Interspace that will facilitate a full use of the
Internet capacities. This Interspace will simply be made of host and
user system network neutral and user empowered fringe to fringe
Intelligent Use Interfaces (IUIs).
There are many conflicting interests in Internet use. A peaceful,
stable, and development oriented conciliation of their diversity can
only be rooted in an architectural conciliation because:
* the constitution of the Internet and, therefore, of today's world,
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
is in the source code (Dr. Lessig).
* if you want to teach people a new way of thinking, don't bother
trying to teach them. Instead, give them a tool (here the
Internet+), the use of which will lead to new ways of thinking
(Richard Buckminster Fuller).
* to prevent a technology from being wrongly used, it has to be, by
design, as elegant, efficient, and cheap when its use is ethical,
as it has to be costly, dangerous, and noisy when its use is not
ethical.
This requires an "ethitechnical" approach to innovation, by the joint
imaginative efforts of all the concerned parties. Such cooperation
will be honestly and openly sought. This way, non-cooperating parties
will not be in a position to further complain and everyone will be
able to consider, at the earliest time, the impacts on their
objectives and strategies.
3. Subsidiarity
The principle of subsidiarity means that the end to end network job
is subsidiary to the fringe to fringe network requirements but it can
still support them in a limited mode. This means that end to end
network layers only have to perform those tasks that cannot be
performed more effectively, under nominal or assisted conditions, at
the fringe to fringe layers.
This is intrinsic to the Internet "general terms" as documented by
RFC 1958: "the goal is connectivity, the tool is the Internet
Protocol, and the intelligence is end to end rather than hidden in
the network".
3.1. net centricity based success
End to end intelligence carries "the network's job [which] is to
transmit datagrams as efficiently, neutrally, and flexibly as
possible. Everything else should be done at the fringes". This end to
end intelligence has made the network's job a core premise,
facilitator, and accelerator for a rapid, sustained, cost-effective,
and managed improvement through increasingly complex digitally
permitted interactions in every domain of utilization.
3.2. network effect and people centricity
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
In parallel to the emergence of this network-centricity, the
"everything else" now extends to people-centricity, the need for a
facilitated capacity to take an advantage from the "network effect"
and intelligently use it (IUse).
* The "network effecto, by its very nature and the reach of the
technologies, spreads across the whole digital ecosystem (WDE).
* As a consequence, person-centric social effects are broadly
observed that can only develop with IPv6 providing everyone with
permanent addresses as well as stable, secure, consistent,
unambiguous, and fully multilinguistic Integral Digital Names
Systems (WDNS, see below), and a network neutrality that protects
privacy and guards against spam, excessive commercial influence,
and social engineering.
3.3. Centricities scaling
The target is, therefore, to match this network and people
"centricities scaling" through the "Internet+" framework. This means
the ability to adequately support the next billions of IPv6 social
peer to peer users of trillions of intelligent names attached to
millions of integrated root names (such as the Internet TLDs) of the
WDNS as ICANN/ICP-3 has proposed to investigate and experiment it.
4. Integrality
There is an increasing acknowledgment of the holistic nature of the
internet and, therefore, of the digital ecosystem to which it
belongs. However, the notion of a "whole digital ecosystem" (WDE)
means the entire ecosystem in its integrality, i.e. in the state of
being:
* total: the whole.
* holistic: the interdependence of its parts.
* complete: with all the necessary elements or parts
* being subject to the integrality principle, which suggests that
when two fields or systems are intricate and one field or system
changes, the other changes assuming a similar pattern, as is the
case in the plug to plug bandwidth, end to end Internet and, more
sophisticatedly, in the fringe to fringe Internet+ extended
layers, and above.
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
The integrality principle also extends to disciplines, and suggests
that when two fields of knowledge or disciplines work on intricate
issues and one field of knowledge or discipline uncovers a new
result, the other should progress in parallel.
What belongs to the WDE will, therefore, be called "integral", such
as the "IDN", i.e. the integral digital names of the whole digital
name space ("WDNS") in order to avoid confusion with the terminology
of the Internet legacy. (NB. IDNs are the addition of the Internet
legacy DNs and IDNs which are actually managed in the same way by
IDNA2008, the only difference being that DN U-labels and A-labels are
strictly identical).
5. Network neutrality
Neutrality is a systemic concept that also applies to networks.
Systems neutrality implies that every element or component of a
system can be replaced by any other equivalent occurrence or
implementation, according to the system definition or standards, from
any source or origin, without the system's local, logical, and
integral behaviors being modified. In the Internet context,
neutrality applies to the electric medium and to logical protocols.
It should also apply to a common semantic root architectony, i.e. a
theoretic core referent that everyone could agree upon, as a minimal
common basis for further personal, cultural, logical, relational,
etc. parameterizing.
6. IUse Area and Community
RFC 3935 assigned the IETF its "goal" and mission. It "is to make the
Internet work better [in producing] high quality, relevant technical
and engineering documents that influence the way people design, use,
and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet work
better. [Because the] IETF community [] believe[s] that the existence
of the Internet, and its influence on economics, communication, and
education, will help us to build a better human society."
6.1. Identification of the Internet+
The IDNA2008 work, RFC 5895, as well as the exploration carried out
within the IUCG (iucg@ietf.org non-WG mailing list) and towards an
ALFA (Architecture Libre/Free Architecture) framework have shown that
in order to scale from the Internet to the Internet+, additional
fringe located layers had to act as an Intelligent Use Interface
(IUI) middleware, either on the user side or as an OPES.
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
6.2. Identification of the IUI
Such an IUI will interface the Internet as well as any other digital
technology and service of any nature. It will include direct
interactions with the local operating system, applications,
architecture, architectonic vision (i.e. architectony of reality),
and user personal behavior. It will also be able to interact with IUI
specialized complementary, allied, or extended network services, and
with their relational spaces' referential systems (such as the MDRS,
cf. further on).
6.3. Identification of the Intersem evolution
The aforementioned exploration and work have also shown that the
Internet+ layers were to further support a full, new technological
upper stratum dedicated to semantic communications (semacoms)
interested in intercomprehension facilitation. The "Intersem"
(semiotic Internet) upper stratum will probably integrate the
semantic oriented work and research that the W3C, JTC1/SC32/WG2, etc.
have engaged. This "Internet of thoughts" or "Internet of Subjects"
will, therefore, consequently lead to a major parallel extension of
the users' expectations and personal centricity. It will be referred
to as the "cerebric stratum", as its ultimate task will be "brain to
brain" facilitation in using auxiliary intelligence tools (working
along cerebric schemes similar to the human brain).
6.4. Identification of the necessity of the IUTF
The post-IDNA2008 IETF debate, the IESG qualification of these issues
as "research", the IAB and ICANN works, etc. have shown that if these
topics were of concern to the IETF and to the Internet community,
they had to be documented by a dedicated Intelligent Use Task Force
(IUTF) entity, liaising with the IETF through the IUCG.
6.5. Identification of the IUse area
This implies the precise definition of an IUse area and the emergence
of the IUse community. It calls for an Intelligent Use Group
(IUGroup) gathering the different endeavors that will share the
stewardship of the IUse strata (IUI and preparation of the Intersem
layers) and their concerted representation and expertise through an
Intelligent Use Steering Group (IUSG).
6.6. The IUTF in continuity with the IETF
Architecturally, RFC 1958, RFC 3439, the RFC 5890/95 consensus and
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
the post-IDNA2008 positions of IESG, IAB, and ICANN seem to confirm
that:
(1) the core intelligent job of transmitting datagrams is end to
end and documented by the IETF for it to work better.
(2) the intelligent job of presenting these datagrams is fringe to
fringe and documented by the IUTF in order to adequately use the
WDE resources to answer more users' expectations.
In establishing the IUTF, the IUse community should capitalize on the
IETF experience at least in two areas:
(1) in copying the IRTF organization.
(2) in proceeding on a multiconsensus basis. IETF rough consensus
leads to a uniformity which is appropriate to the end to end
environment. Multiconsensus is necessary to fringe to fringe
subsidiarity to best support intercompatibility within complex
diversities.
7. The Internet+ architectural framework
Diktyology (from Greek "diktyos": network) is the scientific and
philosophical discipline studying networking. By equivalence with
ontology, which studies the being, and ontologies which document it,
a diktyology is also a internally networked ontology [PAUL MATHIAS].
The Internet resulted from a diktyologic change from a host-centric
to a network-centric motivation. The extension from the Internet to
the Internet+ architectural framework is another diktyologic change
placing the person at the core.
7.1. The basic Internet+ vision
The Internet+ is based upon a people-centric vision. This change
permits relativity in the network vision, but it does not modify the
existing RFCs, software, and hardware. This is because it only
innovatively applies the RFC 1958 time proven rules:
* " If there are several ways of doing the same thing, choose one".
* "Duplication of the same protocol functionality should be avoided
as far as possible".
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
* "All designs must scale readily to very many nodes per site and to
many millions of sites".
* "Keep it simple. When in doubt during design, choose the simplest
solution".
* "Modularity is good. If you can keep things separate, do so".
It applies these rules to situations where "it was better to adopt" a
core acceptable solution, "rather than to wait until a perfect
[subsidiary] solution could be found". It does not replace it,
however, it rather uses fringe intelligence to allow it to scale. If
one takes the example of the DNS, this approach was advocated ten
years ago by ICANN. This was in its ICP-3 document where it calls for
IETF supervised experimentation towards architectural progress.
Its basic idea is that when diversity is expected to be supported at
a user application layer in duplicating the same protocol
functionality, it is better to unify the support of that
functionality, for all the applications, at an intelligent network
front-end specialized module. This permits the number of more simply
designed applications to freely scale. It is in this way that the
Internet Use and Users applications are protected by a single chosen
inference method from the interferences between different ways of
doing the same thing.
The Internet+ scaling is, therefore, 100% compatible with the
Internet legacy. However, it conceptually and, therefore,
progressively and practically most probably modifies the Internet
systems and enlarges their capacities.
7.2. Presentation layer
The support of the presentation layer can be very sophisticated in
the IUI framework and include application firewalls. Protection
against WDNS homographic confusion should be located there. This may
lead to different ML-DNS architecture.
Actually, the whole IUI issue could be considered as an intelligent
presentation stratum between the transportation and the usage strata.
This calls for a review of the OSI model that this memo does not
attempt to carry out. It would consist in considering in parallel the
network and user side presentation and services issues in a revised
OSI/IP integrated and extended model (OSIPX): the inner design of
this model would probably be simple enough but would probably not use
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
a plain layer pile.
* such a model may be necessary to address the networked cognition
level above.
* can certainly be used as a stratum based rough model corresponding
to the SDOs that are involved:
* bandwidth stratum documented by the IEEE, supported by
electromagnetism.
* signal oriented stratum documented by the ITU, supported by
bits (metadata implied in topology).
* passive content stratum documented by the IETF, supported by
datagrams (metadata in header)
* active content stratum documented by the IUTF, supported by
infograms (metadata also in content).
* semantic stratum explored by academic studies, supported by
intelligrams (metadata also in context).
(to be further extended)
7.3. The Internet+"s networks
A simple way to emphasize the structural "difference-in-continuity"
between the Internet and the Internet+ is to describe the Internet+
as "the networks of the network of networks". More precisely, the
Internet+ is the fringe-to-fringe networks of the end-to-end network
of plug-to-plug networks.
Each of these Internet+ networks can be categorized as either:
* a public network: open to everyone without restriction.
* an intranet: closed network supported by private lines.
* a VPN (virtual private networks): intranet extension in using
public network bandwidth.
* an externet: "open closed garden", network open to everyone but
limited by some constraints. For example, the Internet is open to
everyone but restricted to its end to end nature.
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
* or more generally a relational space that may be defined by their
"cortege" of parameters (data), metadata (data on data), and
syllodata (the data on the interlinks between the data).
This section further introduces some conventions and terms that are
to be used in documenting the fringe to fringe layer of the network
typology. This terminology is necessary to build a mental picture of
the relational model and functional chains of the Internet+.
7.4. Relational Spaces
There are many ways that cybships can be associated together on a
permanent, semi-permanent, or occasional basis: real and virtual
networks, externets, CLASSes,GROUPs, presentations, IRNs, protocols,
languages, mailing-lists, access policies, etc. These associations
are generically called "relational spaces". Relational spaces may
share common MDRS referent services.
7.5. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC2119]. The key word "IS" and "ARE", mean that the definition is
to be taken as an absolute fact beyond the specification reach.
This implies that an IETF "MUST" is to be considered as an "IS/ARE"
by the IUTF. This clearly separates the IETF and IUTF areas.
7.6. Cybship Supervisor
A "cybship" is understood as a stand-alone cyberspace (digital
ecosystem) organization. It is located on a nano-chip or involves
hundreds of computers around the world. Its particularity is that its
static, cinematic, and dynamic organization and behavior are under
the control of an authoritative supervisory system.
A supervisor can be under the command of a person (Manned Supervisor:
MSup) or be a stand-alone process. (Unmanned Supervisor: USup).
For resilience purposes, Supervisors can be organized into ranked
task groups. This means that different Supervisors can be
simultaneously active in a cybship as long as there is a ranked
subsidiarity. Every Supervisor, on a "time to sleep" (TTS) basis,
broadcasts "sleeping pills" bearing its rank. If an active Supervisor
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
receives a sleeping pill of a higher rank it goes to sleep for a TTS.
This means that if a Supervisor does not receive a sleeping pill of a
higher rank after two TTS periods, it starts taking control of the
cybship. It is in this way that every server of a cybship can always
be supervised even if the relation with a higher rank (for a wider
area) supervisor(s) is lost.
7.7. IGNET
To communicate, a cybship utilizes its Internal and Global Network
(IGNet) system, which gathers its dedicated, shared, and public
networking resources at plug, end, fringe, and cerebric levels.
The cerebric issues are not a part of the Internet+ but rather of the
"Intersem" stratum; however, in essence, any networking function when
it is jointly carried by a group of persons do participate to some
extent in brainware executions.
The Internet is one of the end to end resources that ignets can use,
whether with its Internet+ fringe to fringe extension or not.
7.8. IUI
There is the need for an Intelligent Use Interface (IUI) at common
fringes of the dedicated to shared, shared to public, dedicated to
public, technology to technology, and stratum to stratum parts of an
IGNET.
The Internet+ framework does not require any model or technology for
IUIs, but the initial exploration of an RFC 5895 conformant system
conceived the IUI as a set of Plugged Layers on the User Side (PLUS).
This permitted to identify at least:
* a virtual implementation of an overall extended presentation
layer.
* an interapplication layer driven by a "Netix" interapplication
system.
* a user side network application layer implemented as coherent
middleware of a networked type of smart local operating tasks
(slots).
7.9. NETIX
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
The expected growth in size, services, and distributed tasks
architecture of the IUI calls for a Networked Executable Tasks
Interface Command Set (NETIX) in continuity with the POSIX
specifications set. After an initial experimentation period, the IUI
services should be documented as interoperable along the NETIX
specifications set. The NETIX commands should ultimately be supported
by different protocols: a simple test implementation will use WDNS
labels in order to be easily used and tested throughout the whole
digital ecosystem (WDE) at a low cost for non-Internet technologies
and procedures.
7.10. MDRS
There is a need for concerted and mutual documentation among the
cybships. These mutual documentation records need to be polylingual
(in several languages and scripts), fully multilingual (i.e.
documenting the multilinguistic aspects) and to form a fully
distributed reference system across the Internet+. This is the job of
an ISO 11179 conformant MetaData Registry System (MDRS). The MDRS is
to be an open diktyology (structurally networked ontology set) of the
whole digital ecosystem and further on to make available the
facilitation referent architectony of the Intersem stratum.
Facilitation is understood as the cerebric assistance towards
intercomprehension based upon a common architectonic referential, or
architectony. Semantic facilitation is understood as the cerebric
assistance towards intercomprehension based upon a common
architectonic referential, or architectony. Semantic facilitation
topics are not supposed to be parts of the Internet+ framework, but
the Internet+ documentation must permit their exploration, prepare
their further documentation, and ensure that they can be freely used
in further innovation.
The MDRS diktyology should distribute to cybships a set of references
encompassing and extending the IETF IANA files (cf. IANA
Consideration section), and covering all the networking names and
parameters of the whole digital ecosystem (WDE).
There are, therefore, requirements for the MDRS in order to be easily
adapted to the needs, point of view, and situation of every use and
user. As such, a wikilike architecture that is made ISO 11169
conformant would seem adequate.
7.11. Relational Spaces
There are many ways cybships can be associated together on a
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
permanent, semi-permanent or occasional basis: real and virtual
networks, externets, CLASSes, presentations, IRNs, protocols,
languages, mailing-lists, access policies, etc. These associations
are generically called "relational spaces". Relational spaces may
share common MDRS referent services.
7.12. WDNS
There is a generic need to name entities that can be accessed or
referred to throughout the WDE. The response to this need is referred
to at the whole digital names space (WDNS). The Universal Resource
Identifier (URI) of the WDNS are to be multilinguistically usable as:
* Universal Resource Names (URN) to uniquely identify any resource
in the Universe.
* Universal Resource Locators (URL) to uniquely identify the
location of any resource throughout:
* the WDE network types [initial contribution of Tymnet],
* a multiplicity of CLASSes (orthogonal dedicated naming areas
contributed by IETF [RFC 882, 973, 1035]),
* an unlimited set of relational "presentations" (contributed by
the OSI model as its layer 6) to adequately support multiple
forms of security approaches, script and linguistic
diversities, etc.
Naming started on international public services in 1976. It was
managed by Tymnet under FCC control. Its initial root names were the
ISO 3166 country codes, and then it added the first international
private systems code, including the Internet, and eventually
integrated the X.121 addressing scheme numeric names. After the
connection of the Internet to the International Packet Switch
Services (in 1984) RFCs 883/884 and further on (1987) RFCs 1034/1035
documented the Internet DNS. The integration of the DNS as a
partition of the WDNS was completed in 1994 by RFC 1591. It reflected
and finalized the initial (1984) and ongoing inter-operator
consensus, after the Internet DNS had taken the lead in the WDNS
area.
The initial Tymnet technology included "GROUPs" as well as "CLASSes"
of which the Internet+ will also support. "GROUPs" are host target
lists, i.e. hosts sharing one or several common characteristics
differentiating them from others as a destination. This concept was
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
also supported by the OSI architecture as CUGs ("closed user group").
Because the end to end Internet model does not include a specific
presentation layer, the documentation of the IDNA concept to support
names in every language was delayed until the end of 2010. At that
date the IETF consensus on the IDNA2008 RFC set (RFC 5890 to RFC
5895) established rock solid stable WDNS support by the ASCII DNS, on
the network side.
The subsequent:
* IDNA2010 project concerns the documentation of the post-IDNA2008
non-IETF issues on the user side.
* The IDNA2012 project concerns the resulting IDNA2008/IDNA2010
related needs.
The final Internet+ architectural framework may result from the
results of these ongoing endeavors.
7.13. xIP
Externets may need extended Internet Protocol features. This should
be explored, tested, and validated together with the IETF because it
might lead to extensions (not changes) of IETF area concepts.
This may concern the way to qualify traffic as:
* linguistically extended: for a punyplus algorithm to be used,
supporting orthotypographic needs through metadata (e.g. Latin and
French majuscules).
* the economic status of traffic (private, free, commercial,
special) in order to better tune the type of transactions.
* etc.
7.14. IPsec
IPsec should be systematically supported at the IUI level. Other
encryption methods should be optionally supported on a presentation,
class, or externet basis.
7.15. Intertest
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
The ICANN ICP-3 document states: "Experimentation has always been an
essential component of the Internet's vitality. Working within the
system does not preclude experimentation" but it must be done "in a
manner that does not disrupt the ongoing" network operations.
"It should be noted that the original design of the DNS provides a
facility that accommodates the possibility of safely deploying
multiple roots on the public Internet for experimental and other
purposes. As noted in RFC 1034, the DNS includes a "CLASS" tag on
each resource record, which allows resource records of different
CLASSes to be distinguished even though they are commingled on the
public Internet. For resource records within the authoritative
root-server system, this CLASS tag is set to "IN"; other values have
been standardized for particular uses, including 255 possible values
designated for "private use" that are particularly suited to
experimentation."
"To take advantage of this facility, it should be noted, requires the
use of client or applications software" such as the IUI that the IUTF
is set to document.
Such a testing should aim at:
* capitalizing on the Tymnet, OSI, and IETF cumulated experience
together with the other ongoing public, academic, private, and
open projects for network evolution throughout the world.
* satisfying the RFC 1287, RFC 1958, and RFC 3439 while respecting
the RFC 3935 definition of the IETF mission and scope, and the
definition of the IUTF charter, which includes a specific
involvement in testing its propositions.
* protecting RD from the risk of commercial sponsoring bias
documented by RFC 3869, through grassroots development and
validations.
* addressing the WSIS commitment to unleash the full power of the
communication technology.
* experiment and validate the Internet+ framework proposed
solutions.
This should result from a joint "Intertest" charter gathering the
ICANN ICP-3 and multiple RFC scattered IETF requirements for such
experimentation. As a result Intertest experiments should at least:
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
* be clearly labeled as experiments,
* make it clearly understood that they may end without establishing
any prior claims on future directions,
* be appropriately coordinated within a community-based framework
(such as the IUTF).
* commit to adapt to consensus-based standards when they emerge
through community-based processes.
Actually, such a Charter shall establish the Intertest externet. A
joint technical committee should be created to assume its stewardship
and coordinate the multiple projects' experimentation campaigns.
7.16. Test IRN/TLDs
The ICANN Fast-Track project was set-up to test IDNcc/gTLDs. This
project did not consider the IDNA2008 protocols which still have to
be tested in a full end to end IDNA2008 and fringe to fringe Intlnet+
context.
Serveral project will be therefore "intertested", including the
".FRA" project for an open francophone diktyology using the ".FRA"
name space as its open taxonomy and a prototype for the Intersem
Semantic Adressing System (SAS) exploration. For convenience and
interaction with other existing sites, the MDRS will document ".FRA"
both as an IRN in the Intertest CLASS and as an User Level Domain
(ULD) as an IN CLASS second level zone.
8. Centricities scaling
The introduced "centricities scaling" effect has crossed the end to
end network limit. The need is to understand how the "Internet+"
architectural framework can address the new situation and prepare, or
at least not oppose, the next step towards digitally assisted mutual
intercomprehension services, when it cannot alone match the
requirements of the scaling effect.
The scaling effect obviously affects the whole network system of
which the unicity, as the network of network (there is one and only
one single network), becomes a limiting rigidity. The principle of
subsidiarity permits the splitting of the current network
architecture and service deliveries into three subsequent, but
unbundled, strata:
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
* the common core: what (existing or new) has to remain definitely
and absolutely stable and simple so that everyone can build on it.
This is currently associated with the end to end services and
issues. This is the part of the WSIS Tunis agreement that (1)
acknowledges it as being of American legacy and documented by the
IETF, and (2) attributes the emerging aspects to the care of the
International Community in its regalian, civil, private, and
normative components.
* the IUI: the initially optional and progressively ubiquitous
intelligent use interface, to relate and serve network centricity
and individual centricity. This is the area that this memo
attributes to the IUse community for it to be documented by the
IUTF.
* the scaled level deliveries: transmitted and possibly enhanced
data are delivered by the IUI at the user side of the fringe.
This Internet+ framework unbundling provides flexibility, which is
necessary for network centricity to better perform through fringe
intelligence. However, it is likely that people centricity will in
turn call for further architectural improvements to facilitate its
own mastering of the general WDE scaling.
This facilitation will be twofold, in similarity with the RFC 1958
end to end statement:
* the goal is to facilitate brain to brain intercomprehension, the
tool is the Internet+ Framework, and the intelligence is fringe to
fringe rather than hidden in user applications.
* The fringe to fringe intelligence caries the network's enhanced
job that is, on top of transmitting datagrams as efficiently and
flexibly as possible for better interoperability, to facilitate
informatics and semantics process to process as much as possible
for better interintelligibility.
* Everything else should be done on the user side.
Likewise, this fringe to fringe intelligence should make the extended
network's job a core premise, facilitator, and accelerator for a
stable, sustained, pervasive, and facilitated approach of the
increasingly complex digitally supported human intercomprehension in
every domain.
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
The support of the scaling effect, through the "network centricity -
IUI - people centricity" Internet+ framework, will affect many areas,
ranging from the ecosystem stewardship to the resolution of the WDNS
problem. It will provide the network with a better capacity to meet
the quoted challenge of trillions of IPv6 peer to peer users
resolving the variants of trillions of digital names, built after
millions of international root names, throughout a multitechnology
(including the Internet) and multiservice (including those of the
Internet+) context.
8.1. WDE stewardship
The IUse Community refers to four levels of system and network
stewardship:
* the operance plane concerning the short-term contractual,
operational, and commercial issues.
* the governance plane concerning the mid-term rules and laws and
the societal issues.
* the "constituance" plane concerning the long-term and civilization
issues - e.g. the constitution of the Internet is in the code.
* the adminance plane concerning the administration and the
maintenance of the technical issues and concerns.
Their organization and open and transparent mechanisms shall be
documented by the IUTF.
8.2. Diktyologic considerations
The end to end Internet is an integrated core system obeying the
general system theory as per RFC 1958. The fringe to fringe Internet+
actually shares its IUI with an external unlimited diversity of
systems with which it relates. RFC 3439 already considered the
architectural particulars of very large systems. The need is now to
consider the particulars of the imbrication of very large systems'
diversity, of which IDNA2008 is only an example.
This is why the size, the complexity and the semantic diversity being
reached by the ever expanding whole digital ecosystem (WDE) call for
an appropriate extension of the systems theory. This work will be
carried as a way to integrally support incremental, disruptive and
fundamental innovation and research in the interdisciplinary field of
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
networks architecture at physical, logical, agorical(collective
mutuality of different logics as at an agora), and cerebral (brain
inner language) levels.
The thinking processes of complexity facilitation that will be
involved precisely belong to the kind of reflection resolution that
the Intersem layers should provide. This means that the very IUTF
investigation process towards the Intersem layers might also serve as
a source of experience to explore, conceive, document, and build
facilitation solutions.
It is expected that the IUTF multiconsensus agorical emergencing
(producing an emergence) process may provide an experience of the
networked semantics. This is why on-going work in the systems
extended theory shall be one of the main constituents of the IUTF
culture. This is also why this integral cultural extension should be
documented by a permanently maintained interdisciplinary glossary.
(section to be expanded)
8.3. Multilinguistics
Natural languages are humans' brain to brain protocols. Linguistics
is the study of these protocols. Multilinguistics is the study of
their cybernetics, i.e. their day to day practical coexistence and
mutual relations.
8.4. Natural languages
There are four main kinds of support for natural languages by the
digital systems:
* universalization - languages are replaced by a digital
codification (ex. EDI, ITU protocols)
* lingualization - the technology is "biased", in which a natural
language and its script are embedded to ease software development.
* globalization - the natural language and script of a biased
technology are extended and made pivotal through:
* internationalization of the medium: support of the Unicode
character set.
* localization of the ends: translation of some elements, through
"locale" files. E.g. Unicode CLDR.
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
* filtering (RFC 4647) of the traffic according to its linguistic
characteristics coded through langtags.
* multilingualization - support of all the natural languages on a
technical equal footing. This requires the full support of the
"presentation" layer.
Until IDNA2008 the Internet architecture has no presentation layer,
nor any way to support it. The Internet+ supports presentations
thought WDNS label header (e.g. extended name: xn-- header).
8.5. Mecalanguages
The multilinguistics discipline needs an integral table of reference
documenting the world in which mecalanguages are being used. A
mecalanguage is a natural language version that is destined to be
used by machines. Mecalanguages can be used in OCR programs, audio
conversion, man/machine interfaces, automatic translation, semantic
programming, etc. The most common way that they are specified today
is through:
* laws: they are the language and script of the laws, either by
states or by normative authorities. This law refers itself to
legal use dictionaries.
* literature: published texts may complement the law as a referent,
or be the referent when there is no authoritative source (state,
academy), and there may be dictionaries to help in understanding
these texts.
* people's speech: the need is then to record vocal exchanges and to
transcribe them.
Ultimately, mecalanguages will become the referential replacement of
natural language because the more people we have on earth the more we
need a stable common understanding of what is being said and written.
This might be feared as a loss in culture and in human empowerment.
This depends on the way the RFC 761 and RFC 793 of Jon Postel's
principle of robustness is applied: "be conservative in what you do,
be liberal in what you accept from others". The impact of
mecalanguages on natural languages and cultures will probably be
equivalent to the introduction of dictionaries in the 15thh -17thh
centuries.
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
In addition to grammar and syntax, as the key features of
multilinguistic semantics that we will be interested in, is the
"polynymy" notion of an identical synonym in different languages and
the mecalanguage orthotypography, i.e. the scripting syntax and
attached meanings to the different orthotypographic variants.
8.6. IPv6/IDv6 addressing and IDV6
IDv6 may be the "killing application" that is sought in order to
deploy IPv6. Its support via IUI gives it all the flexibility and
power to dissociate the internal IDs from the IPv6 address (address
header).
In particular, IDv6 IDs can be supported as local addresses for
multiple headers as currently explored by the IETF/WG/NAT66 or even
under IPv4 as last level label in an IDN.
There is a need for a standard concerning local grid addressing. This
GRID6 standrad should relate an IDv6, expressed as an address or as a
numeric label in a digital name, to a local address. This can be for
plug-and-play installation, address translation, etc.
(section to be expanded)
8.7. The WDNS
As indicated above, the WDNS related issues have proven to be
complex. Not to increase confusion, this memo on the support of the
Internet presentation and intelligent services layers, could not be
introduced prior to the publication of all the post-IDNA2008 IETF and
ICANN WG provisional Drafts. This is now the case after the ICANN/VIP
Draft was produced.
8.7.1. ICANN
A preliminary note on the architectural nature of ICANN is essential.
The ICANN claim is on the stewardship of the Class 1 ("IN") root and
of all IP addresses:
* on behalf of a US Government public trust of which it is
accountable to the Internet community.
* further to a joint Affirmation of Commitment.
This means that ICANN is not a Standardization and Documentation
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
Organization (SDO), except when acting with its own contractors and
for their clients. Before starting the IUTF, it is was necessary to
wait for the conclusion of its post-IDNA2008 VIP Working Group on
Variants if it had specified a technical solution due to
circumstances making it partly act as an IETF substitute, but hat has
not been the case.
8.7.2. Class Root Administrators
The Internet+ WDNS framework considers all WDNS CLASSes. This calls
for a concerted stewardship of all the CLASS roots. This permits
ICANN (and every other CLASS root administrator and root name
registry manager):
* to enter into a similar Affirmation of Commitment with all GAC
members.
* or to publish open Declarations of Commitment.
These Commitments should include the common respect of the
registrants' right to see their registrations honestly maintained by
the Internet/Internet+ communities until an international agreement
delegates registry registration to an independent international body,
probably with the WIPO, which will determine the legal conditions of
the trademarks' rights and protection in the WDE.
8.7.3. Internet+ framework WDNS
The WDNS support in the Internet+ framework is multilayered (ML-DNS).
* It calls for two MDRS tables:
* UNISIGN: its purpose is to document the delimiters that are
used by the WDNS in different scripts.
* UNIGRAPH: its purpose is to provide a homographic table of
every ISO-10646/UNICODE code point, i.e. sorted by bitmaps
along sorting visual equivalence algorithms.
* The WDNS includes international digital names (IDN):
* of any type,
* using any script,
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
* for any purpose (URN, URL),
* for a registrant's life or resource need period basis,
* respecting a common digitally genitive (from the root name to
the highest label level) sequence of UTF-8 labels,
* delimited as per the UNISIGN table,
* supporting any language orthotypography and label polynymy,
* using its CLASS 0 (UG) UNIGRAPH registration as a protection
against homographic confusion,
* originated in the single authoritative matrix of the concerted
international root names (IRN). Note: Internet DNS TLDs are
IRNs.
* the Internet DNS has been conceived as an interoperable partition
of the WDNS, and therefore, is a fully compatible partition of the
WDNS. This interoperation will be strictly enforced as per the
IDNA2008 RFCs.
* the support of the WDNS will be ensured by an ML-DNS, multilayer
architecture where:
* the resolution engine is the ASCII utilization of the Internet
DNS, as per IDNA2008.
* the interface with the End User applications will be provided
by a unique Point of Resolution (UPR) at the IUI, warranting a
unique resolution result to every user application and a unique
place for WDNS parameters' maintenance without any requirement
for application developers other than transparent UTF-8
support..
* a "preDNS" function or service is to analyze the entered URL in
order to provide the ML-DNS with :
* the CLASS, IDNA2008 UTF-8 entry, polynym (variant to use),
* transcription of the correct orthotypography (through the
introduction of an UNISIGN meta-sequence) to be used through a
"punyplus" algorithm (the punycode algorithm is end to end, the
punyplus algorithm is fringe to fringe),
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
* the presentation to use,
* the possible protocol, IDN/TLD, language, CLASS, etc.
mappings to use,
* possibly the relational space, etc,
* a digital name pile (DNP) is used for the ML-DNS I/O where the
IDNs are documented in their different consequent format and
corresponding IP address, possibly on a relational domain
basis.
* every ML-DNS occurrence can act as a root server for its cybship
and directly question the name server set(s) of its choice for any
given CLASS/root name zone. This means that authority can be
granted by the registrant and acknowledged by the user. As an
example everyone can establish family protected zone directories.
8.7.4. User Interface specifications
RFC 5895 provides a practical example of the way IDNA2008 can be
supported on the user's side. The IETF and IUCG/IUTF debates on this
aspect, which has also been fed by Unicode and Firefox, will lead to
a documentation of:
* the presentation layer features that are to be supported by every
users' browsers or other GUIs
* and the way the ML-DNS, the network services and applications, and
the remote hosts can transparently and neutrally interoperate with
them through the Internet and other technologies.
8.7.5. Intellectual Property and reserved Root Names
Note: Integral Root names (IRN) is the generic term for TLD in the
end to end Internet context.
Numbers and letters make labels. Labels of genitive constructs from a
root label make names. The WIPO is the international register of the
names registered on a national basis in its Class 1 to 34 for goods
and 35 to 45 for services.
Thus, there exists, on a universal basis, a CLASS 0 by default for
items of all kinds. It brings together the ASCII alphanumeric labels
(from 0 to Z) and their polynyms (strict functional synonyms in other
symbologies - also called "variants" - punycoded in ASCII), along an
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
integrated coding based on a non-visual confusability coding
(UNISIGN).
Its stewardship is insured on a concerted basis within the IUGroup,
until most probably the WIPO takes it:
* It classifies all ISO 10646 characters per homograph symbols.
* It reserves at the root level of the heterarchical IDNs
(Integrated Digital Name System):
* alpha only (i.e. without figures) root bigrams from ISO 3166:1
and their polynyms, for countries.
* alpha only root trigrams, or their multilinguistic polynyms as
appropriate, from ISO 639-3 for the main linguistic entities,
and alpha only root quadrigrams, or their polynyms as
appropriate, from ISO 639-6 for the remaining language
entities.
* "aann" alphanumeric root quadrigrams or their multilinguistic
polynyms as appropriate of the WIPO classes for use in
"trade-mark.aann" IDNs by the rights of the trade-make
registration, where:
* "aa" is the ISO 3166:1 bigram of the country's WIPO registry
* "nn" is the number of the WIPO registration CLASS.
* already established root labels.
* tri-and quadrigrams of generic interest.
* any other label pursuant to the ISO 11179 acceptance procedure
for the creation of registers or to the governance agreement of
the universal digital ecosystem.
Consistently, in the Internet, the IUTF identifies WDNS Class 0 as
identical in the Steward and DNS cases.
Consequently:
* ownership of root labels should be delegated or acknowledged and
published by WDNS steward,
* root zone owner have the full right to delegate digital names
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
using their root label in applying the administrative rules they
decide to publish.
* for URN stability, digital name delegation should be for unlimited
durations, as long as they keep being used for what they currently
designate.
* in public and private spaces, WDNS operations should be
structurally dissociated from the registries' administrative
authoritative functions.
8.8. Authors" rights protection
(This part is to be discussed hopefully with Authors' organizations
and WIPO)
8.9. Neighbouring (Related) Right protection
(This part is to be discussed hopefully with Authors' organizations
and WIPO)
8.10. Anti-spam protection
A store and retrieve mail extended service architectural framework
supported at the IUI level should be explored, documented and tested
as, among others, a response to the spam scourge.
(This part is to be discussed and further expanded)
9. Transition
(This part is to be discussed and further expanded)
An externet is an "open closed garden", i.e. an open restriction of
the common space based upon some well understood legal and/or
technical criteria. It may result from the intersection of a GROUP
and a CLASS. This can be used to manage a transition period, for
example to progressively extend access to new types of operations and
permit new types of interoperations.
The goal is to maintain seamless continuity and compatibility between
the end to end Internet and its fringe to fringe Internet+
encapsulation. Historically, the end to end Internet was built as a
US Government and Industry sponsored externet of its fringe to fringe
Internet+.
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
9.1. Priorities
The resulting priorities are in regards to:
* technology and protocols.
* IPv6 addressing plan and whatever IDv6 oriented help can be
provided. IDv6 is understood as the global use of IPv6 IIDs.
* the WDNS support and the need to expand the information of the
WDNS/DNS CLASSes, implication and limitations of Class IN
(ICANN/NTIA) TLDs that seem to be ignored by the public, need to
involve the WIPO to stabilize IP protection, necessary concerted
agreement over root name registrations, etc.)
9.2. Detected constraints
Deploying the Internet+ can be done immediately, most of the needed
software elements being available and time proven. The main
constraints are:
* cultural, since most of the Internet mental and economic schemas
change of perspective.
* to assemble different software components into IUI architectures.
In particular to embody the cybship concept in compact "wikisets"
to provide users with a comprehensive enough tool for a complete,
but simple to manage, social or/and professional online permanent
callable presence.
* explore, experiment, validate and document a NETIX network
executable tasks interoperating command system embryo that can be
very basic during the pilot phase.
* establish and man the different sites and bootstrap the various
mailing lists to establish an intertest stewardship.
Experience may be draft from the Internet PLUS preparation work, and
from the Google+ service.
An IUTF concertation meeting is tentatively proposed in Montpellier
(France) in June 2012.
9.3. Numbers in Names (NinN)
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
There is a need to use numeric names in a consistent and coherent
manner. This coherence should extend to a compatibility conversion
with the RFC 3419 and RFC 4001 formats.
9.4. IRNs
An important issue is the ICANN NewgTLDs Program that has been
established, documented, and proposed without taking care of the DNS
CLASSes, while the Internet architecture, technologies, protocols,
implementations, user rights, and innovations are all based upon the
existing 65,536 CLASSes, including 256 that are immediately usable or
that are already currently used by private projects.
It is likely that the Internet community will allow ICANN to
introduce a limited number of new root-names in the WDNSpace CLASS
IN. However, no one can guarantee that there will not be a legitimate
use of the same character sequence in other CLASSes (as this is
documented and suggested to alt-root developers in the ICANN's
Internet Coordination Policy no. 3).
* In the end to end Internet case, most of these CLASSes are subject
to the IETF decision (except those reserved for private use). In
the fringe to fringe Internet+ case, the allocation of these
CLASSes (and possible sub-CLASSes) is subject to the concerted
goodwill of the IUse community end-users.
* Several (12) IRNs will be implemented for experimentation and will
then be reported to the Internet+ community, as per ICANN/ICP-3,
including:
* ".art" as an experimentation area for arts.
* ".asso" as an experimentation area for non-profit associations
* ".blog" as an experimentation area for the Blog types of
network services.
* ".ediki" as an experimentation area for a special type of new
network services.
* ".fra" for an experimental francophone open diktyology using
its namespace as its taxonomy.
* ".hist" as an experimentation area for chronologies.
* ".nic" for an experimental IRN manager name space ("irn.nic").
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
* ".sys" as a research and experimentation area for distributed
systems and ecosystems.
* ".test" as a test-bed name space.
* ".un" as a test experimentation area for the United Nations
Organization.
* ".wde" as an experimentation area for all whole digital
ecosystem issues.
* ".wiki" as an experimentation area for the Wiki type of network
services.
10. Security considerations
The proposed architectural scaling does not concern the end to end
security context that remains completely unchanged. It should,
therefore, be accepted as a routine extension by the Internet
technology. However, this may not be the case in terms of security.
10.1. Enlarged and person centric perspective
The user perspective is drastically extended, and it will certainly
call for new security and privacy considerations by the IUTF, as this
extension may unveil areas of risks that were not perceived before.
10.2. A new element, i.e. a new area of risk in the Internet architecture
The architectural and R&D exploration considers the implementation of
the IUI as being a separate virtual machine, possibly under a
different operating system, authoritatively controlled via NETIX by
the user's Supervisor. It should, therefore, behave in part as an
application firewall. However, applications that expect dumb end to
end traffic may be affected by the intelligent fringe to fringe
enhancement provided by the IUI. In that case, a temporary solution
might be to bypass the IUI thereby possibly creating risky
disparities between interoperating applications.
10.3. An obsolete IAB Draft to consider?
An obsolete IAB IETF Draft by Brian Carpenter and Bernard Adoba
brings up issues related to protocol extensions. This memo should be
used as a starting point to consider the security and stability
issues resulting from the technological extensions resulting from the
Internet+ scaling while encapsulating the Internet architecture.
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
10.4. Browser architectural security concerns
In an end to end architecture, browsers assume some fringe to fringe
functions. This means that:
* the IUI addresses the risks that different browsers represent in
not guaranteeing the same behavior, on the same machine, to the
same applications, used by the same user concerning these
functions of which the behavior is now the IUI unique behavior as
authoritatively controlled under NETIX by the user's Supervisor
using the same "netlocale" parameters (at user, machine, cybship
or IGNET or MDRS level).
* their architecture is to be reviewed in order to clearly separate
what belongs to the User Interface and to the Intelligent Use of
the external resources.
This is in particular the case with the so-called IDNA architecture.
The IETF loose description of it as "Internationalized Domain Name in
Applications" has to be corrected to "Integral Digital Names
Application", i.e. a unique focal point to ensure a security scan of
the IDNA2008 domain names, usually within an ML-DNS architecture.
This service can be provided as a browser plug-in or an application
function (with results that may differ from a browser to another or
to another application) or as part of the machine specialized
security system. The disparity of applications and browser
proprietary solutions represent a definitive, huge security risk that
should be opposed with the utmost determination, at least equal to
the applications' and browsers' manufacturers to get this way a
competitive advantage.
This kind of risk may ultimately be addressed through the NETIX
specifications, where browsers and applications manufacturers should
definitely make sure their concerns are taken into consideration.
10.5. Considering the overall impact of Internet+
The Internet+ architectural framework has a direct influence on the
whole digital ecosystem's homeostasis, behavior, stability, etc. and
on its use and, therefore, on the stewardship of this use. This
certainly has impacts on military, industrial, economic, and cultural
issues. This is why a joint reflection with governments and national,
business, civil society, international, and standardization
organizations is undoubtedly necessary. This should be organized at
the IUSG level or with its cooperation. The IUSG will set-up to this
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
end an exploratory Internet Fringe Security International Stewardship
(IFSIS) DIG that will consider the Internet+ operance, governance,
constituance, and adminance aspects from every point of view.
11. IANA considerations
The proposed architectural scaling and the further expected Intersem
work will call on coherence and interoperability with the
JTC1/SC32/WG2 deliverables and will most probably use the Internet
acquired experience through the DNS and, therefore, rely on extended
DDDS solutions.
Due to its semantic nature, it is likely that the Intersem will be
closely built around the MDRS and that the MDRS will be used to
control the IGNETs' operational environment.
This should not affect the existing IANA content, of which the data
are to be ported and integrated into the MDRS distribution. Updates
from the IANA and other SDOs sources such as the IUTF will be carried
out daily in the MDRS reference registry.
11.1. IUser utilization of the IANA data
However, the reference registry will only be a part of the Users'
MDRS registries. Users will, therefore, be able to supersede the IANA
data with their own values in order to better organize their own
IGNET and externets.
11.2. IUTF MDRS files
There is a need for the IUTF to at least maintain:
* the UNIGRAPH and UNISIGN tables,
* a unified polylinguistic mecalanguages international cross
referencing table.
* This table will be called MLTF 3166-7 because its core referent
will remain the ISO 3166:1 as extended to the local
administrative languages (and, therefore, to mecalanguages as
defined above) in 2006.
* it will be presented as a database that includes the necessary
"locale" files permitting one to easily localize its reading
and remote access.
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
* national and linguistic referent authorities will be
referenced.
* the cross referencing will extend to open source tables, such
as ISO 639, SIL, and Linguasphere, in cooperation with the
interested members of MAAYA, the World Network for Linguistic
Diversity, which is a multilateral network created to
contribute to the enhancement and promotion of linguistic
diversity in the world and that serves as the moderator of the
sub-theme on the Linguistic Diversity of the action line C8 of
the WSIS Plan of Action and has initiated the Dynamic Coalition
for Linguistic Diversity of the Internet Governance Forum.
IUTF will attempt to present these three tables in using the
Wikilogia project of diktyology (internally networked ontology).
11.3. IETF MDRS Files
In this real world, the IANA is owned by ICANN due to their joint
affirmation of commitment with the US DOC. This affirmation
stipulates that it institutionalizes and memorializes the technical
coordination of the Internet's "DNS" by ICANN.
This considered "DNS" is defined as:
* domain names;
* Internet protocol addresses and autonomous system numbers;
* protocol port and parameter numbers.
This document states that: "ICANN coordinates these identifiers at
the overall level, consistent with its mission". As far as the
Internet technology is concerned, this mission is documented in RFC
2860, since the IANA is not quoted and none of its particulars is
discussed in the Affirmation of Commitment. This means that the
definition of the ICANN "DNS" without mentioning CLASSes means that
ICANN and the US Government consider that :
* the domain names and root file in the "DNS" that they define are
those of Class IN (or one). This is a position that ICANN has
consistently documented that permits ICANN in its Policy Document
nr. 3 (ICP-3) "A Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS", to
request the use of another class by what it calls the
"alternative-roots".
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
* the [BCP 42] IETF authority (cf. [RFC 5395]) concerning the CLASS
allocation is not challenged and remains entire, including the
CLASSes 65,280 - 65,534 (0xFF00 - 0xFFFE) being dedicated to
Private Use.
This is an area where conflicts may arise because ICANN:
* has only referred, on its New gTLD Program site and literature, to
the CLASS properties and to its self-limited claim to top level
domain name delegation authority in CLASS IN, only in permitting
this memo to be published on its open discussion page.
* has so far only signed one single Affirmation of Commitment while
it has to sign similar affirmations with every Government pursuant
to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Geneva
declaration stating: (6) we rededicate ourselves to upholding the
principle of the sovereign equality of all States.
As a result:
* IETF and IUTF should not get themselves directly involved in the
risk of what can be disputed as an international political
conflict or an anti-trust action. Provision to that end should
have been obtained at the WSIS where the IETF chose not to
participate, and ICANN has plainly shown its disinterest in non-IN
classes.
* IETF and IUTF should jointly document their technologies and IANA
files on a sole technical and established basis (existing RFCs) as
documented in Annex B to this memo, namely dedicating CLASSes "UG"
(0x0000) to unigraphed names, "FA" (0x0002) to a family vision of
the Internet and "IT" (0x0007) to the use of the Internet as its
own innovation test-bed.
* Upon their request, IETF and IUTF should technically advise GAC
Members and Internet Users communities intending to sign joint
affirmations of commitment and to experiment (as was the case in
France [AFRAC]) and deploy national protection in case of
catastrophe or war through a national reference MDRS center.
This is why IETF and IUTF should affirm their respective authority on
their "IANA/MDRS Files", the content of which would be the
Internet/Internet+ international common reference, with possible
emergency national variations documented as part of their
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
technologies. This will not prevent the IETF from continuing to
delegate work to the IANA. However, this would permit everyone in
treaties, laws, and agreements to refer to "IETF IANA files" as
technically complete, independent, and equal for all.
In case of a possible split between ICANN (hence the IANA) and the US
Government ("Any party may terminate this Affirmation of Commitments
by providing 120 days written notice to the other party"), such a
wording would prevent any disruption of the Internet stability: the
operational reference would remain, as usual, the data that is in the
IETF IANA files. By its nature, the MDRS is immune to international
disputes over the consequences of discrepancies between the ICANN
so-called "DNS" data and the "IUTF MDRS Files" since these files are
directly distributed and freely adapted to every IGNET and externet
by their Supervisor. This MDRS distribution will be limited to the
IETF IANA Files. As usual, governments, externet operators, and IGNET
managers will be free to supersede them with their own versions,
parameters, or security level evaluation. The Internet's robustness
is based on the trust of the IETF IANA Files independence,
consistence, resilience, and stability. The IUTF MDRS Files share the
same obligations. The expected direct implication of the IUTF MDRS
Files in the enhanced communication of individual services to
billions of people and machines is probably the best protection
against their tempering. (to be further documented)
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC0882] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names: Concepts and facilities",
RFC 882, November 1983
[RFC0973] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names: Implementation
specification", RFC 883, November 1983.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC1287] Clark, D., Chapin, L., Cerf, V., Braden, R., and R.
Hobby, "Towards the Future Internet Architecture", RFC
1287, December 1991.
[RFC1591] Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and
Delegation", RFC 1591, March 1994.
[RFC1958] Carpenter, B., Ed., "Architectural Principles of the
Internet", RFC 1958,June 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels",BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2136] Vixie, P., Ed., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound,
"Dynamic Updatesin the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)",
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
RFC 2136, April 1997.
[RFC3439] Bush, R. and D. Meyer, "Some Internet Architectural
Guidelines and Philosophy", RFC 3439, December 2002.
[RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
RFC 5890, August 2010.
[RFC5891] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names in
Applications (IDNA): Protocol", RFC 5891, August 2010.
[RFC5892] Faltstrom, P., Ed., "The Unicode Code Points and
Internationalized DomainNames for Applications (IDNA)",
RFC 5892, August 2010.
[RFC5893] Alvestrand, H., Ed., and C. Karp, "Right-to-Left Scripts
for Internationalized Domain Names for Applications
(IDNA)", RFC 5893, August 2010.
[RFC5894] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
Applications (IDNA): Background, Explanation, and
Rationale", RFC 5894, August 2010.
12.2. Informative References
[PAULMATHIAS]
L'Internet, un objet philosophique ?
www2.cndp.fr/archivage/valid/92617/92617-15222-19172.pdf,
2008.
[RFC3467] Klensin, J., "Role of the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC
3467, February 2003.
[RFC3697] Rajahalme, J., Conta, A., Carpenter, B., and S. Deering,
"IPv6 Flow LabelSpecification", RFC 3697, March 2004.
[RFC3869] Atkinson, R., Ed., Floyd, S., Ed., and Internet
Architecture Board, "IABConcerns and Recommendations
Regarding Internet Research and Evolution", RFC 3869,
August 2004.
[RFC3933] Klensin, J. and S. Dawkins, "A Model for IETF Process
Experiments", BCP 93, RFC 3933, November 2004.
[RFC3935] Alvestrand, H., "A Mission Statement for the IETF", BCP
95, RFC 3935, October 2004.
[RFC4290] Klensin, J., "Suggested Practices for Registration of
Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)", RFC 4290, December
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
2005.
[RFC4690] Klensin, J., Faltstrom, P., Karp, C., and IAB, "Review
and Recommendations for Internationalized Domain Names
(IDNs)", RFC 4690, September 2006
[RFC5895] Resnick, P. and P. Hoffman, "Mapping Characters for
Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)
2008", RFC 5895, September 2010.
[RFC6055] Thaler, D., Klensin, J., and S. Cheshire, "IAB Thoughts
on Encodings for Internationalized Domain Names", RFC
6055, February 2011.
[RFC6365] Hoffman, P. and J. Klensin, "Terminology Used in
Internationalization inthe IETF", BCP 166, RFC 6365,
September 2011.
[Moon1981]
[Dyer1987]
[ICANN] "A Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS"n Internet
Coordination Policy nr 3, posted on July 9, 2001.
[ICANN/NTIA]
Affirmation of commitment, September, 30, 2009.
13. Annex A: Acknowledgments
The whole IETF is to be thanked for its contributions, help, and
working model. As are the Tymnet and CCITT people since 1978, in
particular Tomas Hardy, LaRoy Times, Joe Rinde, Robert Trehin, John
J. McDonnell, Louis Pouzin, Vint Cerf, Bob Kahn, John Postel, Paul
Mokapetris, John Klensin, Brian Carpenter, Harald Alvestrand, Russ
Housley, Lisa Dussault, S. Subbiah, Patrick Yeu, Gerard Lang, David
Dalby and many others.
This memo would not have been possible or timely without:
* John Postel RFC 761 and RFC 793, the IETF's RFC 3935 and RFC 3439
and IAB's RFC 3869, RFC 1958,
* the Design Considerations for Protocol Extensions
draft-carpenter-extension-recs-04,
* the WG/IDNAbis consensus uncovered by Patrik Falstrom, John
Klensing, Vint Cerf, Pete Resnick and Paul Hoffman,
* the post-consensus AD's questions of Lisa Dussault,
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
* the creation of the iucg@ietf.org mailing list,
* the draft-iucg-afra-reports-00.txt
* the positive response of the IESG to this draft,
* the IESG and IAB guidance received through their response to my
subsequent clarification appeals,
* the ICANN/NTIA affirmation of commitment and its definition of the
"DNS" actually concerned,
* the desire of the WG/IDNAbis Chair (Vint Cerf) to transfer the
post-IDNA2008 issues to ICANN,
* the purposely technically limited ICANN/WG/VIP very throrough
response in terms of multilinguistics (the discipline of the
cybernetic of the linguistic diversity).
* the exploratory work carried at the IUCG (http://iucg.org/wiki)
and through a more general ALFA (http://wikalfa.org/wiki)
"Architecture Libre/Free Architecture",
* the IAB work on IDNA and the RFC 6055
* the operational and positive revival of the Tymnet Menu Server
concepts through the Google+ commercial proposition.
14. Annex B: WDNS Classes
In order to preserve total compatibility of the Internet with the
WDNS the WDNS CLASSes are the DNS CLASSes and adheres to the IETF
RFCs which document them.
RFC 882 states:
A CLASS field identifies the format of the resource data, such as the
ARPA Internet format (IN) or the Computer Science Network format
(CSNET), for certain RR types (such as address data). Note that while
the CLASS may separate different protocol families, networks, etc. it
does not do so in all cases. For example, the IN CLASS uses 32 bit IP
addresses exclusively, but the CSNET CLASS uses 32 bit IP addresses,
X.25 addresses, and phone numbers. Thus the CLASS field should be
used as a guide for interpreting the resource data. The CLASS field
is two octets long and uses an encoding that is standard throughout
the domain name system.
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
RFC 5395 states:
"DNS CLASSes have been little used but constitute another dimension
of the DNS distributed database. In particular, there is no necessary
relationship between the name space or root servers for one data
CLASS and those for another data CLASS. The same DNS NAME can have
completely different meanings in different CLASSes. The label types
are the same, and the null label is usable only as root in every
CLASS. As global networking and DNS have evolved, the IN, or
Internet, CLASS has dominated DNS use. [] The current CLASS
assignments [] are as follows:
(after the including of the UG, FA and IT class by this very memo).
+---------------+---------------+------------------------------+
| 0 | 0x0000 | UNIGRAPH (UG) cf. annex C |
+---------------+---------------+------------------------------+
| 1 | 0x0001 | Internet (IN) (ICANN/NTIA) |
+---------------+---------------+------------------------------+
| 2 | 0x0002 | Internet (FA) Family IN |
+---------------+---------------+------------------------------+
| 3 | 0x0003 | Chaos (CH) [Moon1981] |
+---------------+---------------+------------------------------+
| 4 | 0x0004 | Hesiod (HS) [Dyer1987] |
+---------------+---------------+------------------------------+
| 7 | 0x0007 | Intertest (IT) cf. annex C |
+---------------+---------------+------------------------------+
| 254 | 0x00FE | QCLASS NONE [RFC2136] |
+---------------+---------------+------------------------------+
| 255 | 0x00FF | QCLASS * (ANY) [RFC1035] |
+---------------+---------------+------------------------------+
| 65,280-65,534 | 0xFF00-0xFFFE | Private Use |
+---------------+---------------+------------------------------+
15. ANNEX C: external presentation summary
This annex provides a presentation framework to introduce the
Internet+ to the public.
15.1. Considering the digital globality
The whole digital ecosystem (WDE) is made of many objects: systems,
network, files, links, programs, protocols, parameters, passwords,
etc. Therefore, you may consider the Internet:
* either as a stand-alone set: system, technology, protocol set,
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
community, etc. This is what we are most used to.
* or as a component of the WDE interactability. This is how we have
to consider it from now on.
15.2. The need to adapt
This new perspective is necessary for four main reasons:
* usage: the WDE has to be people centered (cf. World Summit on the
Information Society). To that end, billions of peers' hosts are to
be weaved together by giving a permanent address and domain names.
* fundamental: the standard model of communications network is the
OSI model that was finalized in the 1970s. Since that time,
Tymnet, OSI, and Internet technologies have in their turn built
and experimented the International Network confronted with many
real needs and solutions to which present the transported data.
Presentation in the OSI model was layer 6. Tymnet was essentially
a presentation layer supported by a network. The Internet
technology supposedly had no presentation layer, but it turns out
that it can support, by subsidiarity, still much more than Tymnet
and that, as a result of the OSI presentation layer, is to be
conceptually reviewed.
* architectural: RFC 3935 (mission of the IETF) and RFC 1958
(architectural rules of the Internet) state that the Internet job
is to be defined by the IETF and is end to end. The rest has to be
carried out at the fringe. However, the IETF consensus on IDNA2008
was only to be found on the "unusual" basis (RFC 5895) of
documenting actions at the fringe, i.e. outside of the Internet,
and outside of the IETF area.
* political: from early 1977 to end 1978, public (ISO 3166:1) and
private international digital naming was consensually organized
and further operated under an FCC license as a single, integral,
and neutral interoperator space based on semantic clarity for the
users, and administration simplicity for the operators. In 1984,
Jon Postel interconnected the Internet and accommodated CLASS IN
according to this consensus (RFC 920) (and X.121 international
addressing supported through numeric names). In 2012, ICANN
departs from this consensus with the "New gTLD Program".
These four reasons are actually the same: the end to end dump
Internet cannot scale and meet the demand. The necessary scaling is a
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
new technological job, hence it has to be carried out at the fringe,
through new layers, above, and not to disrupt the technology of the
legacy layers (protocols, parameters, DNS, etc.). This end to end
Internet has to scale as the fringe to fringe Internet+, which will
interface it with the WDE, through an Intelligent Use Interface
(IUI). This interfacing will respect the WDE integrality principle,
which suggests that when two fields or systems are intricate and one
field or system changes, the other changes assuming a similar
pattern.
15.3. The Internet+ response
The role of the Internet+ is to provide the Intelligent Use Interface
between the Internet and the rest of the WDE. One of its jobs is to
provide interoperability between the WDE WDNS and the Internet DNS,
as per IDNA2008. ICANN has documented the rules for applying for the
name space repartition in its 2001 ICP-3 document, for it to keep the
leadership in CLASS IN, via its root file.
New CLASSes are, therefore, proposed to the concerted approbation of
the Internet+ community:
* UNIGRAPH CLASS 0 (UG) to uniquely reference IDN labels against
homographic confusion.
* family CLASS 2 (FA) to permit operators to support a family
filtered version of their registries.
* intertest CLASS 7 (IT) - as suggested by ICANN - to use the
Internet as its own test-bed without the risk of interfering with
the real traffic of CLASS IN and FA.
In addition, the 255 private use CLASSes can be used to organize
community oriented projects.
Several IRNs will be introduced to be used in the Intertest
framework, such as ".blog", ".ediki", ".fra", ".nic", ".test",
".wde", and ".wiki".
(this part is to be further documented)
Author's address
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft Internet+ Framework March 2012
Jean-Francois C. Morfin
INTLNET
120 chemin des Crouzettes
Saint-Vincent de Barbeyrargues
34730 Saint-Vincent de Barbeyrargues
France
Phone: (33.9)
Email: jefsey@jefsey.com
URI: http://intlnet.org
Morfin Expires September 28, 2012 [Page 45]
