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]