Subject: Re: Re[3]: national security

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:22:35 +0100

> This being said, I note that this thread is only oriented to
> prospective numbering issues. May I take from that that none of the
> suggested propositions rises any concern ?
>
> In particular, that there is no problem with two parallel roots file
> if they want to be identical? What would happen if one was hacked? (I
> note that this is the current situation of the Internet where two
> deliveries of the same file are proposed).

Hasn't this idea been killed enough? I am a newbie on the Internet
(only been here since 1988) and _I_ am fed up with this discussion.
It's a bad idea, for more reasons that I will bother to write down. If
you want an exhaustive answer, I suggest you ask SECSAC.

> The same, no one comments on secondary source for the root, meaning
> that the ICANN unicity is  not an intrisic need, provided the
> different root files collectors strive to collect the real data from
> the TLD Managers (who are authoritative, while the root file is not).
> Not a problem to anyone?

See above.

> No one either comment on private TLDs, or the creation of a virtual
> TLD used through Host.txt only. No one objects to the generalization
> of users resolvers, the possible resulting dissemination of the root
> file to all the users and their resulting ability to fight an ICANN
> redelegation what is a major issue at WSIS.

Hosts.txt only is a decision by the local system operator. They are
free to handle name resolution as they want (well). NIS, NIS+, DNS, or
Hosts.txt. If I where them, I would use the same DNS as all the rest of
us.

My opinion is that his entire thread, is a reiteration that most people
while learning IP and the Internet, got thought  was a bad idea - and
why. It simply lack basic understandings.

- - kurtis -

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 15:35:23 +0100

>(only been here since 1988) and _I_ am fed up with this discussion.

Hi! Kurt,
did not see that one. I will respond it because it may help you 
understanding. I am also a newbie as I only been here since 1977 (on the 
other side of the "plug") and _I_ keep trying IETF people to understand the 
same thing: there is a real world out there.

The first time I had that discussion was with the first internut to show up 
in an international users meeting in Tahoe probably in 1984. I wish I 
remember the name of the guy. Could have been Vint from what I remember, 
but I think the name was longer.

It may interest you that I am a peacefull person and I want to reach 
consensus. But I have Louis Pouzin involved (we both are on Eurolinc BoD) 
who you may know. He specified the first "mail" program at MIT, the 
scripts, the end to end datagram, the IP zones (recently Vint recalled the 
Internet could have been called "catenet" from his multiple routes 
concatenation approach - I think is the necessary future). I am glad he is 
not active on this list :-)

take care.
jfc

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 11:28:04 -0500

--On Friday, 05 December, 2003 15:35 +0100 jfcm <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

>...
> But I have Louis Pouzin involved (we both are on Eurolinc BoD)
> who you may know. He specified the first "mail" program at
> MIT, the scripts, the end to end datagram, the IP zones
> (recently Vint recalled the Internet could have been called
> "catenet" from his multiple routes concatenation approach - I
> think is the necessary future). I am glad he is not active on
> this list :-)

The first "mail" program at MIT, as well as what was probably 
the the first instance of what we would now call instant 
messaging, was specified and implemented by Tom Van Vleck and 
Noel Morris in around 1964 or 65, maybe a bit earlier (I have 
documentation in hand from the 64-65 period).

Louis deserves credit for many important accomplishments and 
advances, but that is not one of them.

 regards,
    john

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:31:48 +0100

Note that I did not mean my comment as sarcasm or irony. If I would 
have, I would have put a ":-)" after it. I didn't. I am a newbie. I am 
still having déja vu.

- - kurtis -

On fredag, dec 5, 2003, at 15:35 Europe/Stockholm, jfcm wrote:

> understanding. I am also a newbie as I only been here since 1977 (on 
> the other side of the "plug") and _I_ keep trying IETF people to 
> understand the same thing: there is a real world out there.
>
> The first time I had that discussion was with the first internut to 
> show up in an international users meeting in Tahoe probably in 1984. I 
> wish I remember the name of the guy. Could have been Vint from what I 
> remember, but I think the name was longer.
>
> consensus. But I have Louis Pouzin involved (we both are on Eurolinc 
> BoD) who you may know. He specified the first "mail" program at MIT, 
> the scripts, the end to end datagram, the IP zones (recently Vint 
> recalled the Internet could have been called "catenet" from his 
> multiple routes concatenation approach - I think is the necessary 
> future). I am glad he is not active on this list :-)
>
> take care.
> jfc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:17:44 +0100

At 17:28 05/12/03, John C Klensin wrote:
>The first "mail" program at MIT, as well as what was probably the the 
>first instance of what we would now call instant messaging, was specified 
>and implemented by Tom Van Vleck and Noel Morris in around 1964 or 65, 
>maybe a bit earlier (I have documentation in hand from the 64-65 period).
>
>Louis deserves credit for many important accomplishments and advances, but 
>that is not one of them.

Dear John,
this is the kind of remark I do not understand. Please contact Tom, or read 
from him. He developped that program with Noel Morris upon the programing 
notes written by Louis (of memory I think it was PSN 69) as a main author 
and two other persons. From this, Tom is not sure of the year as the 
numbering may mean december or january.

We had some serious exchange on that with Tom and others of that period, to 
understand why that "old" (postal) approach was chosen, and not a more 
modern approach of mail pointer passing (I discuss in the prospective 
"weemail" architecture I quoted).

Why this bickering, instead of working together? A waste of time IMHO.
jfc

PS. My mail to Erik was not intended to be copied to the list. My mistake. 
I am sorry as it lead to this kind of exchange.

---

From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:04:45 -0500

I don't know what jefsey means by "IP zones" 

Louis and I met in 1973 and his datagram ideas, sliding window ideas for flow control, influenced my thinking about TCP. Gerard LeLann, who worked in Louis Pouzin's group at IRIA came to Stanford in 1974 to work on the TCP and Internet. IEN 48 refers to "catenet" - a term invented by Louis. So Louis deserves recognition especially for his work on datagram networks. 

I can't speak to the email matter, not having any personal knowledge beyond the work of Ray Tomlinson at BBN in 1971 and Douglas Englebart at SRI in the mid/late 1960s.

At 03:35 PM 12/5/2003 +0100, jfcm wrote:
>But I have Louis Pouzin involved (we both are on Eurolinc BoD) who you may know. He specified the first "mail" program at MIT, the scripts, the end to end datagram, the IP zones (recently Vint recalled the Internet could have been called "catenet" from his multiple routes concatenation approach - I think is the necessary future). 

Vint Cerf
SVP Technology Strategy
MCI
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Ashburn, VA 20147
703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
703 886 0047 fax
[email-masked]
www.mci.com/cerfsup

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 02:45:39 +0100

>I don't know what jefsey means by "IP zones"

I am not from the Cyclades school. May be you know Jean-Louis Grange who 
now chairs Eurolinc. He worked with Louis when I first met them in 1978. 
Their zone vision is for them to detail.

>Louis and I met in 1973 and his datagram ideas, sliding window ideas for 
>flow control, influenced my thinking about TCP. Gerard LeLann, who worked 
>in Louis Pouzin's group at IRIA came to Stanford in 1974 to work on the 
>TCP and Internet. IEN 48 refers to "catenet" - a term invented by Louis. 
>So Louis deserves recognition especially for his work on datagram networks.

That concept permits to unlink the ISP and the host. Obviously to fully 
benefit from that the IP address must concatenate the ISP global address 
with the host global address. Which is were we disagree. But  you should 
agree that unless IPv6 is first implemented with two different numbering 
plans, we will never know if it (and each installed IPv6 system) supports 
multiple numbering plans, creating ourselves a Y2K syndrom. So why not to 
work on both, in parallel, since anyway national security will call for it?

>I can't speak to the email matter, not having any personal knowledge 
>beyond the work of Ray Tomlinson at BBN in 1971 and Douglas Englebart at 
>SRI in the mid/late 1960s.

Douglas Englebart joined Tymshare in 81/82?. It was our attempt to support 
his ideas through the international public network (the "Augment" line of 
products) that started our modelization of what we called open network 
extended services (ONES) ("smart hosts, smart users, smart nets") the model 
and user network architecture I keep working on, and refering to, ever since.
jfc