Subject: [iucg] Internet+ and IUTF drafts

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 22:01:27 +0200

I will try to update these drafts this month:
- http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-iucg-internet-plus-10.txt
- http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-iucg-iutf-tasks-01.txt

Then, I would plan to start working on a prototype interbox 
developped in Erlang and using CouchDB as an integrated NoSQL 
database slot. Next slots could be a DNS protocol, ML-DNS basic 
functionnalities (IDNApp) and a NIC management support.

1. comments on the Drafts are welcome.
2. interest in working on the interbox architecture/development or 
comments are welcome.

Until mid-July I will keep this internal to IUCG.
jfc

---

From: Patrick Suger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 23:08:35 +0200

I understand that when you speak of an interbox you use the word as a
generic term and do not relate the concept to any specific programmation
language.
PSuger

2012/7/8 JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>

> - http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-**iucg-internet-plus-10.txt<http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-iucg-internet-plus-10.txt>
> - http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-**iucg-iutf-tasks-01.txt<http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-iucg-iutf-tasks-01.txt>
>
> Then, I would plan to start working on a prototype interbox developped in
> Erlang and using CouchDB as an integrated NoSQL database slot. Next slots
> could be a DNS protocol, ML-DNS basic functionnalities (IDNApp) and a NIC
> management support.
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> iucg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/iucg<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg>
>

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 00:05:00 +0200

At 23:08 08/07/2012, Patrick Suger wrote:
>I understand that when you speak of an interbox you use the word as 
>a generic term and do not relate the concept to any specific 
>programmation language.
>PSuger

Correct.

Actually, the ICANN mess with vTLDs and  the strategy of Vint Cerf as 
I perceive it with  Public DNS and Google+ (which actually follow and 
test the Internet+ vision with all the power of Google) lead me to 
think that the best way to implement the Internet+ is to consider it 
as an actual independent addition to the Internet. With its 
documentation by the IUTF, on top of the IETF, the fringe to fringe 
stratum being managed as "inter-boxes" services and the ML-DNS being 
implemented as an SDNS (semantic digital naming system) supporting 
the SAS (semantic addressing system). This way, whatever the 
Value-Added stratum (VAS) keeps separated from the Extended Services 
(ESS) one, and does not care about the technology being used there.

This gives more time, prevents a take-over of a "DNS+" by invaders, 
disconnects the IETF from the IUTF as the ITU is disconnected from 
the ITU, and simplifies the I+ Governance.

So, my personal focus is prototyping ALFA (Architecture Libre/Free 
Architecture) from Internet+ to Intersem as an "alfasem" (system) of 
"alfabox"es, and develop  specialised "alfaslots" as proofs of 
concepts. The next common interest I_Ds are:

- the Intertest charter, so there is no confusion when using the 
Internet as a VAS test-bed or moving on top of any kind of future internet
- a cross-technology/system SDNS syntax for the whole digital ecosystem
- UNINUM, a universal numbering plan integrating IPv6 as well.
- some conceptual framework for the intergrams as a generalization of 
the directly adressable datagrams family.

This is why I would like to give-up the Internet+ architectural 
framework concepts as an I_D until we can prove it as operationnal at 
both fringes within the IUTF arena. Just to focus on INTLNET to make 
it the secretariat of the IUSG/IUTF until the I+Governance may organize.

jfc

>2012/7/8 JFC Morfin <<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]>
>- 
><http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-iucg-internet-plus-10.txt>http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-iucg-internet-plus-10.txt
>_______________________________________________
>iucg mailing list
><mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>iucg mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg

---

From: Marie-France Berny <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 01:06:17 +0200

2012/7/9 JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>

>  - UNINUM, a universal numbering plan integrating IPv6 as well.

I had a look to http://uninum.org: you did not change anything. Is Uninum a
matter you plan to discuss anytime soon?
Marie-France Berny

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 10:04:45 +0200

At 01:06 09/07/2012, Marie-France Berny wrote:
>2012/7/9 JFC Morfin <<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]>
>I had a look to <http://uninum.org>http://uninum.org: you did not 
>change anything. Is Uninum a matter you plan to discuss anytime soon?
>Marie-France Berny

This is something I plan to discuss as part of the Internet+ Draft. 
However it could also be attached to the SDNS I_D about semantic 
digital names syntax I started working on mostly in French 
(http://iucg.org/wiki/SDNS_-_Semantic_Digital_Naming_Syntax) before 
it should be extended in a dedicated document and MDRS database.

The concept I would eventually propose is the one of an universal 
numbering plan number serving as a common root in decimal, hexa and 
alphadecimal numbering areas. The root would be 3 to 17 figures long. 
An Uninum would then be formed by the NPN + the values of the 
concerned plan, whatever the length of their string. An IPv6 address 
would therefore be 35 hexa long., but could also be compacted as a 
base 36 or 34 (without I and O) alphadecimal number.

However, I would suggest that we keep this concept unprecise in the 
architectural framework in order to be flexible during the 
prototyping/intertesting period and finalize on experience. In 
particular I would like to preserve the possibility to use 
numeric.names to optimise things like CCN (content centric networking).

Comments welcome.
jfc

PS. I am in a Leibniz period while we just discovered the higgs. I 
feel we need to be prepared to fully support monadic networking 
concepts + Complex Time in an _open_ way, not to be passed by the 
future needs, as it was the case with IPv4. So, we are better to be 
able to give a scalar address to every higgs, Planck vanished 
particule, and Platon's idea :-) if possible without wasting too much 
bandwidth!

---

From: jean-michel bernier de portzamparc <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 12:05:06 +0200

> prototyping/intertesting period and finalize on experience. In particular I
> would like to preserve the possibility to use numeric.names to optimise
> things like CCN (content centric networking).
>

If I am correct, you would like to give a final reference or semantic
address to every document or even every object, thought and concept across
the time. Don't you fear to reproduce the Unicode cacophony? Who will tell
you that two objects are the same or not? This will open the door to
intellectual phishing (a part from the practical impossibility due to the
size of the tables ...)!
Portzamparc

---

From: Marie-France Berny <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 12:20:05 +0200

I am not sure the size is so large. People use to survive with 800 to 2000
words. It would be interesting to know how many concepts we actually use
(look at the Chinese characters). Another interesting work is Pierre Levy's
IEML (http://www.ieml.org).
Marie-France Berny

2012/7/9 jean-michel bernier de portzamparc <[email-masked]>

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 16:49:27 +0200

On 12:05 09/07/2012, jean-michel bernier de portzamparc said:
>If I am correct, you would like to give a final reference or 
>semantic address to every document or even every object, thought and 
>concept across the time. Don't you fear to reproduce the Unicode 
>cacophony? Who will tell you that two objects are the same or not? 
>This will open the door to intellectual phishing (a part from the 
>practical impossibility due to the size of the tables ...)!

Good point. However:

1) I do not want to "give a final reference", I need a unique 
numbering plan for all the numbers given by others.
2) this numbering plan will include ISO 10646. So, the problem raised 
by Unicode will be there.

The response lies in my principle of finite binary indiscernibles 
which refines Leibniz's one ( :-) ). If two binary finite objects are 
indiscernible they are the same object. For example, Unicode's 
cacophony, as you call it, result from using assigned code you cannot 
compare rather than the digital representation of its signs. If you 
establish a raster 32x32 (or 16x32) table of the character signs you 
can differentiate them or not, and build a universal table of sign 
graphics (Unigraph). The same for concepts you can build a polynym 
taxonomy. For ideas you can reduce them to logical statements. For 
people you have SSN or Author Numbers, for texts you have ISSN, 
etc.  I do not claim it is easy, but I think it is workable.

Numbers are quite compact, more over if they are Hexa or 
alphadecimal, and if you use only their end, when they have a common header.
jfc