20150121 - JFC Morfin's mail to John Klensin

Jump to: navigation, search

At 19:05 21/01/2015, Jefsey wrote:

At 16:29 21/01/2015, John C Klensin wrote:
Again IMO, none of this has anything to do with Richard's complaint. The issue there seems to be very simply a situation. in which he asked for some things, couldn't persuade the WG that they were important, and is now trying to turn his dissatisfaction with that outcome into a process complaint.

Dear John,

I am afraid that you do not grasp the stakes. This is only a question of trust in you, Bernard, Russ, Brian, Jari, Vint, Andrew, Dave, Steve, Miles, etc.: the concerned IETF leaders.

Until now, we trusted you to keep the TCP/IP consistent with all the RFCs, along the RFC 3935 core values, and we wished for you to continue.


1) this draft declines this trust.
2) Jari published that you yourselves entrust your own decisions in the NTIA, making you the leaders of a USIETF.

Richard asked you to document the reasons for your position; if he still is not statisfied he will appeal the IESG decision.

I will appeal because I accept your (you = collective leadership) reasons but I need you to correct your new lack of clarity.

1) this is your IETF and it decides what it wants as per its RFC 2026 procedures that have been respected as they will respect my appeal once an RFC will have been allocated. As Brian has shown it: this is not a leadership decision but a rough consensus to adopt the position proposed by your leadership. Alles klar.
2) You have already documented these reasons in RFC 6852: the IETF is no longer the unique authoritative source for the internet technology, its innovation is led by the economy, and the internet technology is no longer the only technology being used on the catenet.
3) I have appealed RFC 6852 because it does not say who replaces the IAB as the ultimate referent, both in technology choices and in a global community markets economic reading. Now, Jari Arkko has answered me: the NTIA.

As catenet co-builders ...

As a catenet co-owner (one among billions of omnistakeholders):

1) We trust you. Even when you say you are not in a position anymore to assume the responsibility that we trusted you would trustingly assume.
2) We do not trust the NTIA as your replacement.

Where does that lead us non-US citizen users?

Like billions of people, I own interconnected processors. On those processors, I load FLOSS software that permits me to use the catenet that these processors of mine cooperatively form with these billions of other people's systems. I am not dogmatic about any standard: I just want this FLOSS software to best work to support my needs in relating with the other people's systems through our common catenet.
For 40 years, people (me included) have tried to make money with this need of ours. This was mainly because they had to pay for the catenet substructure, selling us the concatenation of our systems with theirs and those of others, using telephone lines we partly already paid for with our taxes. Their proof of concept is completed, and we now can also locally connect our various home appliances for free, and cooperate with our neighbors through our Wi-Fi based catenet non-profit local cooperatives.
Our priority now is to pay less and to get more, as a return on all the money and intelligence we have invested and continue to invest into all of this. Our only question is: (now we cannot trust you anymore) how do we best achieve that it at least neutrally, surely, and securely work?
  • We do not like ICANN and its TLD mafia that costs us a lot of money and prevents us from using the names we wish as we wish it.
  • we do not like the RIRs that cost us a lot of money for addresses that we already have (everyone has a telephone number).
  • we do not like TCP/IP that brings us SPAM and the NSA,
  • we will have to competitively (as per RFC 6852) check your IETF propositions as being adequate to our needs or to your deciders' needs.

Therefore, ...

Being now clearly by ourselves:

1. the first thing we need is to get rid of ICANN and the NSA.
2. then, a no-SPAM technology architecture.
3. then, a universally consistent free and sensible numbering scheme.
4. then, a TCP/IP stack improvement or a trustable technology replacement (cf. IAB's call for that).
5. then, cheaper, safer, and easier:
  • file transport (NDN),
  • meaning inter-comprehension support (intersem),
  • cloud distributed processing (SDN),
  • inter-application on an ASAP (AS A Protocol) basis,
  • on a global and local catenet network multitechnology
  • we can consistently supervise from our own Intelligent Use Interface (IUI) system
  • as our sure, secure, transparent, resilient, etc. VGN (virtual glocal network).
6. then to cooperatively develop, test, and document how to make the other catenet users' systems address our common needs : we will call the Libre solution Netix. It will embed:
  • a security/multilinguistic/format/intelligence etc. OSI layer six+
  • a set of traffic adapted middle layer innovative technologies (as a result of global communities' market economies as documented by RFC 6852).
7. then a multitechnology IANA extension to jointly support the related names, numbers, and parameters, and use documentation of reference.
That is to say, Vint Cerf's IEN 48, 1978 objective a- nd what I managed and sold as a public international service 30 years ago (but to thousands fewer users).


We already have:

1. many Libre tools to build this Netix solution.
2. ITU and many others have provided and will provide OSI layer six+ documentation, and libraries.
3. at the IETF you have stabilized a widely used middle layer technology
4. you have also documented some level seven services that we may share, improve, and consistently extend among new technologies (such as OPES and DDDS).

What we need is to make sure:

1. our multitechnology Intelligent Use Interface (IUI) includes the necessary routines,
2. we keep their documentation up to date,
3. we cooperatively consider how to improve them.

Our coexistence

The problem is the coexistence between you and us, and the transition.

1. We would have loved the IETF people to continue to act as a unique authoritative referent through their http://iana.arpa source, and as a result keep controlling the ICANN technical fancies in the DNS "IN" CLASS.
2. Now, however, you have formally decided that
  • the NTIA is to decide for you because you cannot be the only ICANN responsible accountability referent after the NTIA departure
  • you are not interested in making sure that the IETF technology stays compatible with other network technologies like ours.
  • we have to collectively assume the job - at least among us.
  • we will keep relating with you as the US industry global community technical referent.

Our Catenet cooperative corporation will implement a Libre repository for all the technologies that the catenet will support. The best way to keep this multiple source consistent would be to document an IANA protocol. This could be best carried out within the OpenStand framework, along the RFC 6852 principles.

Appeal for clarification

All of this may create some confusion if this is not clear for all that this is what you want the NTIA to organize, and we prefer to organize on our own for those interested from the Libre community.

In addition, some people may want the IAB to continue,

  • assuming its unique authoritative referent role for the "mono-internet+catenet" technology that they use
  • technically balance the ICANN/Rosetta/WEF economic weight.

This is why I will have to appeal this WG's RFC once it is published.

This will make the IESG, IAB, and ISOC officially and formally clarify things, for them; telling the world that the IAB http://iana.arpa is only to be the source of reference for the IETF brand among RFC 6852 various internet technology lines of economically competitive innovations.