[discuss] IPv6 Deployment and IG

Thu Dec 26 21:48:19 UTC 2013

Doxa (from ancient Greek δόξα from δοκεῖν dokein, "to expect", "to seem"[1]) is a Greek word meaning common belief or popular opinion, for those of us (including me, until I looked it up) who do not commonly use this word....

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of JFC Morfin
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2013 3:05 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter; John Curran; Andrew Sullivan; nathalie coupet
Cc: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] IPv6 Deployment and IG

At 20:31 26/12/2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>The same applies to the word "policy", for which I bear some of the
>blame, having used it when drafting the document that became the
>IETF-IANA memorandum of understanding published as RFC 2860.

Along Aristotle, policy is the art of commanding free men. Many may prefer it to being formated by a business doxa using a technical alibi.

My long standing position is that RFC 2860 is part of the solution (the other part is RFC 1958) when it states: "It is recognized that ICANN may, through the IANA, provide similar services to other organisations with respect to protocols not within IETF's scope (i.e.
registries not created by IETF or IRTF action); nothing in this MOU limits ICANN's ability to do so."

IETF never limited ICANN. Their own lack of vision does it.

At 18:16 26/12/2013, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 12:06:52PM +0100, JFC Morfin wrote:
> > No, but it needs to be governed.

NB. ("it" being the technical community)

>Why?  What is the problem that needs to be solved here?
>
>A certain amount of this discussion appears to be taking as
>self-evident that there is a problem to be solved, and so far I've seen
>several mostly ill-defined competing descriptions of "the problem" or
>even "the problems".  Surely, if we cannot describe what the issues
>are, we are going to have a mighty hard time coming up with mechanisms
>to do something about them.

I suggest you do this. Read and compare IEN 48, RFC 1122, 1958, 3439, 3835, 3869, 3935, 5890 and 6852.  They have been written by people you know, we respect and who are quite clever.

- If you consider your reading is fully consistant with what you think today, I will never convince you.
- Otherwise, I suggest that the BUG is not in the texts, nor in what IETF did, but in their "loose" reading (that some benefit from).

There is a thibetan say: if something is true, it can be demonstrated/discovered in several ways. I have my own solution. It can only be consolidated by yours, and the ones of others.

At 16:25 26/12/2013, John Curran (responding Nathalie Coupet) wrote:
>   The issue being discussed is far greater than "whether there should
> be national IPv6
>   address registries via the ITU"...  (that particular topic has been
> discussed at length
>   in various ITU Study Groups and has gone moribund due to inability
> to find any actual
>   problem that would be solved as a result of proceeding accordingly)

Natahalie, the IPv6 debate suffers from the same global syndrom as everything affected by what I call the Internet BUG (bogged down in a uniform/unique globality). Its aficionados look for architectural light in markets economies (RFC 6852) fostering competition. Yet, their credo is monopolistic. They designed 10 IPv6 numbering plans (i.e. 8 spare RIR systems, and 35,635 DN spaces, i.e. ICANNs). They want only one. What ITU considered was only to manage one of these plans and see what people would chose, for what.

Today, 1NET wants one RossetaNet, under one GS1; as they wanted one IDNA under Unicode, as Unicode wanted one langtag system on the IANA.
Because the real thing is the race for the IANA. Because they can only imagine one single political and economical "globality" that could work because NewsWeek, the NYT and The Grand Chessboard said so.

The internet test phase has fully proven that the catenet concept, under limited TCP/IP end to end experimentation, was robust (except that it would probably do far better security/service wise with a presentation layer). May be time now to fully implement the concept and enlarge it? Before a blunt "critical self-organization" quake of magnitude forces us to do it?

Cheers
jfc

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

                                                                * * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in
error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or
use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
person. Thank you for your cooperation.

                                                                * * *

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
                                                                        Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00