<html>
<body>
At 22:16 01/02/2014, Michel Gauthier wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">At 19:47 01/02/2014, JFC Morfin
wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">It consists in providing each
person and utilization a full command on their relational behavior in
continuity with their command of their decision process through their
operating system, applications, and databases. This means, atop of the
OSI pile, a network oriented OS continuation of Posix.</blockquote><br>
This is certainly an interesting concept, but is that not a lot
ambitious?</blockquote><br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a>There is no ambition other than to address the user
rather than the developer needs through the convergence of what has been
planned (but not completed yet), exists, is proven (running code), and
accepted (living mode). <br><br>
The current interim/working EDP model is based on the master/slave,
client/server, and cloud models where the network has the purpose to
support end to end datagrams. Posix is introduced at
<a href="http://www.opengroup.org/austin/papers/backgrounder.html">
http://www.opengroup.org/austin/papers/backgrounder.html</a>. This is a
computer centered model, not a people centered model as demanded by the
WSIS.<br><br>
The real distributed model is P&P where "peer" stands for
port, process, person, or people depending on the considered stratum.
Each peer is to be able to organize its own haze (use oriented
distributed virtual capacities) and relational spaces the way it wants.
To do that, it needs to master all the functors capable to operate
morphisms in this haze. Posix defines these functors when the haze is
restricted to the host. <br><br>
The internetting project means to support this target (cf. IEN 48), and
so far:<br><br>
- defines the hosts to hosts protocols - (�internet� stratum)<br>
- does not yet support the multitechnology OSI presentation layer six,
but locates it at the fringe (RFC 1958) or considers their applications
(e.g. Web, expected ONS for the Internet of Things) - (this can be called
the �intertech� stratum)<br>
- documents extended services (i.e. active content oriented) oriented
functors like IDNA (RFC 5895) and OPES (RFC 3835) - (what can be called
the �interuse� [IUse] stratum)<br>
- does not support semiotic intellition (intelligent information)
functors - (what I call the �Intersem� stratum that I am mostly
interested in). <br><br>
The way I propose to proceed, in order to merge the computer and the
network model in a unique model, is in identifying and documenting their
middleware as an Intelligent Use Interface on its own (for the network,
it is a host virtual front-end or a cloud smart gateway; for the host it
is the part which puts the haze that it belongs to in local
continuity).<br><br>
1. no change at the network <br><br>
2. no change in Posix, as it�s a command set based on the following
principles
(<a href="http://www.opengroup.org/austin/papers/backgrounder.html">
http://www.opengroup.org/austin/papers/backgrounder.html</a>)<br><br>
- Application-Oriented <br>
- Interface, Not Implementation <br>
- Source, Not Object, Portability <br>
- The C Language <br>
- No Superuser, No System Administration <br>
- Minimal Interface, Minimally Defined <br>
- Broadly Implementable <br>
- Minimal Changes to Historical Implementations <br>
- Minimal Changes to Existing Application Code <br><br>
This set already includes a lot of network oriented commands such as:
endnetent, gethostbyname, sftp, ssh, etc.
<a href="http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/dir_all_alphabetic.html">
http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/dir_all_alphabetic.html<br><br>
</a>3. an extension and OpenUse publication of this Posix command set
implementing a full IUI control, and including OPES as an external
piping.<br><br>
This may include commands like dig, nslookup etc and opes, idn, web,
semantic, wiki, ccn, orented etc. command sets in order to process
networks distributed applications as a protocol (ASAP) applied on
"intelligrams", i.e. formated (active) datagrams. Exemple a
Wiki 3.0 intellipage (standalone wikipage).<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">For years, considering a Netix
Posix continuation could have been at odds with the network stability.
For many reasons, including the awareness embodied in this list, that is
no longer the case. This is why I will call for a NetixBarCamp this July
at the RMLL (
<a href="https://2014.rmll.info/?lang=en">
https://2014.rmll.info/?lang=en</a>) to consider the status of the art
and a roadmap and the HomeRoot project example ("give back everyone
their root's data").<br><br>
<br>
So, if I understand you correctly you want to explore how to unite local
and distributed processing and to start by federating the namespace on a
MS concerted basis? But is this possible?<br>
This would put boundaries and sovereignty under people's
authority?<b></blockquote><br>
</b>ICANN is an architectonic layer violation. They try their best, but
this will not change that their functor is about centralizing a
distributed space and regulating a domain which is and must be MS
concerted. As long as it was an attempt in a proof of concept this was
acceptable: it has shown that the "ICANN code does not run"
(hence the debates). So, it is a technical bug to adequately fix. Up to
now, we had a brainware limitation (the debate on this list has shown
once again): mending it without some common awareness was risky.
OpenStand and Snowden have changed that situation: the brainware is aware
and busy.<br><br>
This limitation is the confusion between a file and its data. The file we
copied to the internet in 1984 was for information. It reported the
current data that were MS-set-up by the different network operators,
identified by their DNIC. Postel made it a network administration rule
(IANA) for his network. Truly globalizing the IANA means to give it back
its information role about what is really happening on the network. The
very idea of "balkanization" is indecent and it harms the 60
million people living in a place where a broad part of human civilization
comes from. It only translates the inability of the IANA cartographers to
follow the life of the world. They confuse the map and the
territory.<br><br>
The root is made of the data of the top zone. The root file is the
anachronic ICANN vision of the ICANN/NTIA "IN" class. It is
anachronic because hosts in the top zones are declared by their fellow
TLD name servers and are not registered in the root file, and because
several TLDs are not recorded by ICANN. <br><br>
In order to correctly document and keep the top zone clean, we would need
a permanent survey of the top zone consistency and reality, in calling
each name server and asking it for the list of the TLDs of which they are
currently keeping track of in their buffers and the associated name
servers.<br><br>
jfc </body>
</html>