jefsey at jefsey.com
Tue Feb 25 18:21:10 UTC 2014
At 07:11 25/02/2014, manning bill wrote:
>By definition, a root server, serves the global Internet, is
>designed to respond to queries generated from -EVERYWHERE- on the
Thank you for the clarification.
A root file is a vision of the global internet name space (and
actually more) from a given point of view that is figured by the
final "empty" dot.
By the definition of the VGNs (Virtual Global Network) concept (i.e.
a virtual network vision covering the whole catenet):
- a top zone server serves its users to access the global catenet.
- in using its VGNIC (virtual global networks information center)'s root file.
- Some VGNs can be open, specialized, or closed. The purpose of the
HomeRoot experimentation should be to understand how the VGNICS
(virtual global network information center system) should work to
fully support the DNS needed, unique single and comprehensive map of
To answer your question posed to Elisabeth:
- we will discuss some practicalities, at a Free ISP monthly members
meeting in France, probably next week.
on March 11 in Paris, the day after the French IGF.
- the target is to prepare a coordinated/concerted project at the
IUCG OpenCamp during the Montpellier (France) FLOSS RMLL meeting,
during the second week of July.
As Gregory pointed it out, the first need is of a consistent terminology.
At the beginning of the WGIDNAbis, I had committed, once IDNA2008
would be consensually adopted, to document atop and test an ML-DNS
(ML was standing for multi-ledger registry, some of these ledgers
being able to take care of linguistic classes as suggested by ICANN
ICP-3). The target was that every language could be treated on an
equal effillient footing with English in using Patrik Falström's DNS
vision of Unicode plus some ISO 10646 missing orthotypographic
attributes (like French majuscules).
This calls for a presentation layer six that we located at an
Intelligent Use Interface (IUI) hosting some "Plugged Layers on the
User Side". Its provision of extended services to the user must
either stay transparent to the other side or be able to interact with
its IUI (or with many others services in an "agoric" [i.e.
polylectic] way). During the WG period, we used to discuss the
virtual network created by these IUIs as the "internet+" (that Google
also used). The term "InterPLUS" was also used.
Then, the status of RFC 5895 (which permitted the consensus on IDNA
as exemplifying the way the internet architecture supports diversity
by subsidiarity at the fringe) was disputed: there was a need for a
better inclusion of multilinguistics within the catenet concept and
IDNA in its internet architecture.
- the MINC (Multilingual Internet Name Consortium) was politically
hijacked and was not able to introduce any project over IDNA2008.
- we had created Eurolinc with Louis Pouzin. It is active in
different areas but Europe is a big machine.
- IAB was open but never concluded at the architectural level.
- an appeal of mine showed that the IETF was interested/concerned by
fringe to fringe issues but that they were outside of its scope.
- the IUCG was created with Russ Housley in order to house these
kinds of IUsers concerns and I investigated the IUTF (for fringe to
fringe) on the IRTF model.
- IETF created several WGs to integrate IDNA2008 concepts.
- personal constraints and the fear of coaxing crime in the picture,
due to the expected transition delays, prevented me from initiating
an ML-DNS bold work and testing.
Then, Snowden raised the level of awareness so much that crime could
not become an unnoticed danger, IETF added works, new computer
languages, and architectures have emerged, cyberwar issues are
acknowledged, ISOC led the I*coalition effort in the standardization
paradigm area with the result OpenStand, ICANN /1net joined the net
oriented OpenStand signatories/endorsers and attempted its Sao Paulo
US/multilateral compromise. So when Mike Roberts accurately described
the States' (every State) e-hysteresis, it was clear that the time
was ripe for pressing for a change in the general paradigm from
"super user BUG" ("being unilaterally global") to "informed, capable,
intelligent users". I.e. from decentralized hierarchy to MS
heterarchy. From a single INTERNIC to the VGNICSystem. From
interconnected posix to netix. It may take time, but this cannot be
changed. ICANN is a VGNIC among others that (will) document their
vision of the catenet and of its addresses and connected systems.
The first impact is that I can probably drop my appeal at ISOC
against RFC 6852. My opposition to RFC 6852 is that its
standardization process is not an MS process. A "superboard" concept
is implemented: a 5 head hydra; but it is diluted. No one knows who
the ultimate normalization referent is (except money, but how?).
People, Govs, and industries lose control: an undefined economy takes
However, if MSism turns from being the core architectonic (computer,
network, governance, languages, OS, etc.) paradigm of the
standardization paradigm, my opposition drops. IUCG can then sign
OpenStand after it has been updated (probably wholeheartedly) in
order to read:
- "Respectful cooperation between standards organizations, [on a
multistakeholderist basis] whereby each respects the autonomy,
integrity, [area], processes, and intellectual property rules of the others."
- "contribute to the creation [and the service] of global
communities, benefiting humanity"
Now, the whole thing depends on the machines' effilient running code
and the users' positively accepted living mode. This will be tested
through at least three experimental phases:
1. A zone mapping tool (EZOP: exploration de la zone primaire);
2. the HomeRoot system configuration. How to best support a DNS
autonomous, sure, and secure service;
3. VGNICSystem governance and mutual servicing.
The discussion list is
The VGNICSystem is <http://vgnics.net/>http://vgnics.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss