Subject: Re: [hrpc] draft-tenoever-hrpc-association-02

From: Jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 00:47:31 +0100

At 19:16 28/11/2017, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>So, you might say that the nature of freedom of the Internet arises 
>out of a freedom of assembly that is internetworking: any arbitrary
>set of network operators (you don't need ASes for this, I think) can 
>network their networks together, and get an internet.

They get a catenet. They get an internet if they use the IETF 
protocol set (since the second objective of the IEN 48 project has 
not been met. Yet.)

>The totality of that behaviour together in the world is the emergent 
>thing called _the_ Internet.  Any given member or set of members can 
>refuse or fail to participate to some extent, which means that the 
>Internet is fuzzy.

This is documented by RFC 6852. The fuzzyness comes from the lack of 
warranty of compatibility among global communities' standards. 
Nothing technical prevents balkanization. We unfortunaly opposed on that.

>The individual network operators who are internetworking might meet 
>the definition of "assembly" you've been using, but the Internet 
>does not get that even transitively.

I feel the best definition of the internet is Gaines' one : "we [the 
users] are the internet". Meaning that every human being, if having 
an inter-network connection, is able to dialog (end to end) with 
every other human being if also connected through an inter-network 
connection as long as their inter-connections speak TCP/IP and iDNS.

That is not bad. But we were heading for much more capabilities, 
hence more rights and development for people, back in 1986.
OK, the NTIA/miltary-industrial "status-quo" moratorium has 
officially ended on 10/1/2016. However, we can expect that the 
extended services momentum will take some years to resume.

Even tough we know there are so many egos and interests against it.

best
jfc

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:05:22 -0500

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 12:47:31AM +0100, Jefsey wrote:
> They get a catenet. They get an internet if they use the IETF protocol set
> (since the second objective of the IEN 48 project has not been met. Yet.)

Well, yes, to be precise you only get an internet if you're using
common end-to-end protocols (not necessarily the IETF protocols,
though those are the obvious candidates).

> warranty of compatibility among global communities' standards. Nothing
> technical prevents balkanization. We unfortunaly opposed on that.

I'm not sure I understand why you claim what I claim is "documented"
by RFC 6852, though I agree it's compatible.  I agree that nothing
technical prevents balkanization (or, I think a less
historically-fraught way of saying this is "fragmentation").  I guess
we do not agree that you can get voluntary standards that can prevent
in any technical way such fragmentation: voluntary standards by nature
can fragment, and the way to prevent it is to make the cost of
remaining in the regime cheaper than splitting off.  Cf. forking in
free software.

> are the internet". Meaning that every human being, if having an
> inter-network connection, is able to dialog (end to end) with every other
> human being if also connected through an inter-network connection as long as
> their inter-connections speak TCP/IP and iDNS.

By such a definition,the Internet has never existed.

Best regards,

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2017 13:01:52 +0100

>though those are the obvious candidates).

Correct. In the begining of the international packet switch system
(IPSS) this was true. It was also the second (1978) objective of
the Internet project.

>by RFC 6852, though I agree it's compatible.

An RFC 6852 "global community" is a form of open association. It should
not be only considered as a GAFA consumers flock.

The matter is to see how several global communities, with different
technologies can freely assemble and associate without this being disurptive.

>I agree that nothing technical prevents balkanization (or, I think a less
>historically-fraught way of saying this is "fragmentation").

Difficult to decide when one consider China, or the hypernet various
approaches. I am considering also the SX (societal experience) issues.

>I guess

This is the 1972/74 Congress' idea. It was spread all over the world
as "deregulation" and "market self-regulation". RFC 6852 is based on
that concept (actually the idea seems to be "more rewarding" than
"cheaper"). As far as I undertsand it, IAB RFC 3869 explains why this
may be detrimental and even blocking..

I only note that :
- the granularity (countries in the 70s, glocal markets in 2020) is different.
- I would feel better at ease if a negotiation - mutual stabilization
normative process had been agreed and activated.

However, my real fear is that the normative situation is becoming
unmanageable. To  architecturally conform one is now to master
around 20.000 documents.

>By such a definition,the Internet has never existed.

Never mind! We already are now deeply engaged into the hypernet ...
Yet we do not know if we have the right to associate into such a project:
remember there is nothing ultimately private in the hyperdataspace, so
the technology itself will not "respect" privacy. IMHO the human
rights should be more concerned by accuracy or truth than privacy.
(Where the neuronal networks empathy (coherence) eventually ends?
Before or after merging public and private networked data?)

However, mathematically speaking, this only can be a matter of
statistics: a new theme for law. This belongs to my old considerations
about negentropy, net learning, agorics, multilinguistics,
intellition, relations, precaution, nature of data, etc. in the
datasphere/space. And therefore to the resurgence of network extended
services. It took 45 years but it seems AT&T is eventually buying the
Tymshare project. Without the multinational/industry/people control we
had accepted.
.
Take care.
jfc