20141217 - JFC response to Brian Carpenter

From IUWG
Jump to: navigation, search

The debate was about the http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-06.txt I_D, after WG and IETF last calls.

At 2326 15/12/2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote
The IAB section could include some kind of mild disclaimer ("The IAB takes sole responsibility for the contents of this section."?), but if there is any inconsistency between the IAB and the IETF consensus, we have *much* worse problems than the choice of RFC stream.
So, it would be helpful to see the proposed IAB text real soon now.


Dear Brian,

I certainly agree with you IRT IETF/IAB. The problem (and I referenced this today in my response to Andrew) is that we are now facing a fork between design and use. It is based upon two different visions of the network intelligence. You are the network architect (RFC 1958 is the reference) and so you will easily understand that this problem is a problem of "meta-architecture", i.e. architectonics.

The way the internet lead users intend to use the IETF architecture is not only what the I*core is designing it for. People have learned to use networking intelligence (brainware) with the internet, and they now want much more. And they are in capacity to get it.

This has nothing to do with a negative opposition to the I*core’s work; this is a positive extension of the demand's expectations, that many - including the NTIA - have understood. Based on experience, the IAB has provided a pragmatic response to this situation: it is the OpenStand RFC 6852, in agreement with ISOC, IETF, IEEE, and W3C and has emphazied “permissionless innovation” where “status-quo” prevailed.

The Use demand is not only for a better Internet it is also for (1) other network technologies and for (2) those technologies to be interoperable - actually the need is for them to intricate as they uncouple and can mix transport lower layers and extended services upper layers.


For thirty years (1984), the status-quo strategy has supported the catenet's internetting globalization (American meaning: the entire world). The NTIA transition is looking for its globalisation (catenet's initial French meaning: to every part/topic/people on an equal footing basis, which in its own wording the NTIA phrases as "multi-stake-holder"). I make it a three word term because this is the issue:

  • "multi" stands for the multitude,
  • "stake" stands for a precise list of architectonical tasks/categories that we have to accommodate together,
  • and "holder" stands for the strong grip of every other one [users of the multitude and operators of what is at stake] who wants to retain something on an equal footing).

What we need is an Open Multi-Stake-Holder Access to information and, therefore, the internet to be one Open Multi-Stake-Holder Network among its "permissionless innovative" pears.

The draft looked to me like an architectonical/architectural regression compared to RFC 6852, which is surprising since Russ is a co-author of both and the IAB Chair.


As an IUser ("I" standing here for Internet, IETF, networked Intelligence), I tended to consider the IAB as a convenient trustable referent. However, I was not sure that the IAB was unanimous enough (cf. Andrew) about the governance mechanism evolution and its own responsibility in the existing cross-accountability framework where ICANN is accountable to the IAB. I wanted to clarify that with ISOC through my appeal IRT. RFC 6852. The NTIA interrupted it.

1. Through my appeal IRT this I_D, I want to make sure and published, for everything to be clear, through an IAN Disclaimer, that the IAB and ISOC have fully understood and accepted that they are abandoning the currently built-in alternative to the NTIA oversight. The IAB may certainly save us time and effort in committing to this point in the I_D.
2. If this is the case, there is an architectonical issue that does not simply involve the coexistence of the Internet, NDN, SDN, local networks, etc. technologies on the catenet, but also the consistency of their concurrent and intermixed use by people, industries, countries, and cultures.


This is where the fork is. It is then not a negative but a positive fork. It is acknowledging that the least common decision maker (LCDM) is no longer the I*stakeholders but rather the IUser. This means that the Governance referent is no longer at the internet architectural stratum, but rather at the individual (person, machine, topic, etc.) stratum and even below.

This has at least two consequences for the IAB/IETF:

1. to accept that the debate within the I*core is to be extended to the U*core - U standing for Uniform, like in URL, Universal like in Unicode and Users like in IUse - and actively support a comprehensive multi-stakeholder governance oriented complement to RFC 6852.
2. to work, with the IUsers of the global networked intelligence, on the Internet technology interoperability tools - what I call the "Intelligence Use Interface" (IUI) and want to prototype through the conceptual "MYCANN plug-in" through one or several Libre FLOSS alternative(s) to the Google, Dyn, etc. “CORPCANNs” add-ons and to the various “GOVCANNs” solutions (e.g. US lead multilateral GAC ICANN).


I proposed to work on this through a liaison group (IUCG@IETF) that Russ has accepted. I voluntarily played it low-key in the past months when I saw that it could confuse the issues as long as it was supposed to be a liaison with users who were also involved in non-IETF technologies – i.e. other parallel structures.

Due to the BCP 78 proprietary IP constraints, this WG has made me crash create an IUWG to support a multi-technology position. This position is to be multitechnology oriented because the Intelligence Use is to cooperate in the work of every intelligence networking technology, not only the IETF – which is what started being the case.

This an IETF fork, not as in opposition, but as in generation

jfc