[discuss] [IANAtransition] A Summary of IANA Oversight Transition Tasks and Issues

[Jefsey]

At 18:05 02/04/2014, joseph alhadeff wrote:
>This gets to the point I was trying to make, but obviates the 
>possibility of abuse among technical actors in nontechnical functions.
>I completely agree that I want people with appropriate skills and 
>knowledge working these issues, but they are also subject to rules 
>that need to be enforced to prevent work in combination to deter new 
>entrants or collusion to the disadvantage of customers. It is the 
>concern related to these more societal issues not a direct oversight 
>of their technical function,  which they have a self-interest to get 
>right in order to be more successful, that I am trying to 
>address.  While there are laws that cover many of these issues, 
>applying them may be fairly complex.  Would it not make sense to 
>create some low overhead mechanism that can better address these 
>issues?  It may be more cost effective for the providers as well as 
>customers...

Joseph,

this cost effective low overhead mechanism has a name: ethitechnical 
design. You design a technology where you make it very 
difficult/costly to violate the netiquette. This is built-in the 
network pile: this is the missing internet presentation layer six. It 
belongs to the fringe (cf. RFC 1958), which is outside of the IETF 
scope as we made it clarified through me appeals to IESG/IAB and the 
resulting creation of the IUCG.

The architectural problem of the Internet is that it is designed as a 
"subnetwork" (cf. IEN 48) and is therefore connected through edges 
and not through front-end nodes (as I was used to with Tymnet). This 
only leaves one location for adding the fringe: on the user side, as 
an internet virtual box (the IUI, intelligent use interface) 
supporting the PLUS (presentation/plugged layers on the user side). 
The IUser VGN core is made of its IUIs, and then extends through the 
catenet as any other edge provider. The network is then an "interPLUS".

The demand on the layer six (multilinguistics, technologies formats, 
security, etc.) is all the more heavy than no work has been done to 
secure BGP and that individual and national protections are to be 
implemented at the same time, and multihoming to discourage edge 
surveillance and load ballancing. This calls for some kind of hyper 
traffic/application/intelligence firewall/proxy. This cannot be 
conceived and developped easily, but this does not prevent us to 
start working (I capitalize one my MTX as a multi-machine QNX 
extension experience, a long ago now :-))

The conceptual work is not trivial however as we start from the 
existing internet. The spam experience shows that ethitechnical and 
precaution concerns are not well accepted and mastered by our 
engineers. The OpenStand neo-techno-liberal culture will probably not 
help. This is why I advocate a complete review from inside, through a 
netix extension of posix, to include network security as a built-in 
feature of the [network distributed] OS. This most probably calls for 
a rewrite of the whole OS internal architecture, switching from 
SuperUser/root concepts to capability concepts. Hurd and Midori. 
These were agoric concept at the very basis of Tymnet in 1978 and its 
1980 technology transparent ISIS architecture.

jfc