Subject: RE: [RAM] Discovery

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 22:35:49 -0500

JFC, 

> Jim,
> Very interesting remark as permits to ask simply the very basic
> question: in your mind should we bound to a single net 
> centricity technology and implementation?
> Thanks.
> jfc

Net Centricity principles do not require that tight of a bounding. What
it does require is that all the principles can co-exist and operate (per
the list below and some add others to the list).  Thus it is fair to
have multiple boundaries of technology solutions, but the core
principles should be checked.  It can be useful to the development
models, architectures, paradigms, and implemented solutions is my view.

Does that answer your question enough for now?

Thanks
/jim

> 
> 
> At 05:42 03/01/2007, Bound, Jim wrote:
> 
> >Just for thinking there is a set of principles used by U.S. DOD and 
> >NATO and others called net centricity.  My reference to this work is 
> >the computer science term and not applied with terms like 
> net centric 
> >warfare or net centric ops, but rather a set of pre-conditions to 
> >achieve net centricity from models to implementations.  But it is 
> >beginning to permeate out of the classic military 
> environment and the 
> >core principles I extrapolate and test I use for any 
> architecture and 
> >for implementation are does the networking result provide: 
> >connectivity, interoperability, security, discovery, QoS, and 
> >end-to-end (meaning two peers can communicate without middle 
> boxes and 
> >packets could be encrypted so only the current IP header is in the 
> >clear).  The point of discovery is quite important as that 
> is how the 
> >network learns of parameters and information required.  And 
> does need 
> >some thought while developing an architecture. If any of these 
> >pre-conditions are missing above (and some add others as a note) net 
> >centricity can be negatively impacted, including discovery.  
> What the 
> >answer is for our work here for discovery is entirely premature to 
> >discuss (e.g. DNS, LDAP, UDDI,
> >LDAP+UDDI, SLP, SOAP, etc).
> >
> >Ref John Garstka : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._Garstka
> >
> >Best,
> >/jim
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Roland Dobbins [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 11:21 PM
> > > To: [email-masked]
> > > Subject: Re: [RAM] Destination Locator selection
> > >
> > >
> > > On Jan 2, 2007, at 8:17 PM, Bound, Jim wrote:
> > >
> > > > Putting the architecture discussion hat on only I would not
> > > entirely
> > > > agree given how we have been using the term 'namespace',
> > > but I do see
> > > > the concern and point.  To find compromise I would suggest
> > > we do need
> > > > to be concerned about the principle of "discovery" 
> within the new 
> > > > architecture model.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the clarification; in this particular case it was a 
> > > semantic issue, but one to which attention must be paid, lest
> > > (further) confusion ensue.
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ---------
> > > Roland Dobbins <[email-masked]> // 408.527.6376 voice
> > >
> > >               All battles are perpetual.
> > >
> > >                  -- Milton Friedman
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > RAM mailing list
> > > [email-masked]
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram
> > >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >RAM mailing list
> >[email-masked]
> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram
> 
>   <http://i.msgtag.com/anl/ogdEEgutbu/eetv/foty/Ch/pybmCsasq.gif> 
> 

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram

---

From: JFCM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 16:33:56 +0100

>Does that answer your question enough for now?

Dear Jim,
thank you for your answer. I try to understand applied net centricity 
through practical standardisation examples: JTC1/SG32/WG2 and other 
works on ontologies and metadata propositions. As usual I observe the 
same "confusion" (or documented lack of/planned work) between the 
common Internet layer and my interest in the relational spaces layer 
(the networks of the network of networks).

I feel that net centricity is the correct area where to address this 
confusion which opposes me to most of the IETF. But I feel that we 
still miss the necessary thinking to fully do that. This is because I 
think it calls for "multicentricity" aspects which have not been 
investigated yet (but I may be wrong). Questions are :
(1) is there a single net centricity "technology" (may be not the 
best term to be used but it seems accurate - not in terms equipment 
and hardware, but in term of metatechnology to document technologies)
(2) or the need of a multicentricity open technology permitting a 
wide variety of interoperable implementations of the net centricity concept.

To try to understand that I consider net centricty as the _degree_ of 
pertinent usefulness in describing a network system (permitting 
discovery, QoS, interconnectivity, etc.). It therefore permits to 
measure the tightness of the bounding between a network 
implementation and its description.

- the more the description is usuefull the easier the discovery, 
interconnectivity, etc.
- two networks may have the same lose description and their 
interconnection not to scale because their more precise descriptions differ.

I also observe that the current descriptive "technology" is hierarchy 
oriented. This means that the documented models have a root or can be 
associated in bouquet. But forests are not easy to document. Lateral 
relations are not really considered as such (but I may have not read 
the proper documents). I feel that these lateral relations are 
precisely where "addresses" have a great role to play and call for 
multi orthogonal numbering plans of addresses. This can be true at 
every level (machine interconnectivty, software binary and semantic 
interoperability, people interintelligibility).

The opposition I met about Multilingualism is a good example of that 
misunderstanding: a language (as everything) is first an address - 
where its concepts are documented, or a conditional interlink chains 
a documentation. Internet net centricity is documented in values and 
in texts. There is no problem with values, but there is one with 
texts as they are documented in one given language. However, even if 
it was documented in every language, I am not sure that a net 
centricity based upon the sole current internet experience can 
document every relational space. What if the description of a network 
systems calls on concepts ignored by the Internet technology.

This is a complex issue. I am working on a paper reviewing the 
practical axis of effort (fixity, virtuality, mobility, intinerary, 
multicentricty) approached by this mailing list. This is why I am 
interested by inputs.

Thank you.
jfc