The IETF: Standards and Non-Standards Outline
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The Emerging Internet Governance Mosaic: Connecting the Pieces
The emerging Internet governance mosaic: connecting the pieces William H. Dutton Oxford Internet Institute Malcolm Peltu Oxford Internet Institute Forum Discussion Paper No. 5 Oxford Internet Institute University of Oxford 1 St Giles, Oxford OX1 3JS United Kingdom November 2005 This paper is based on a forum held at the Oxford Internet Institute (OII) in May 2005. The forum was run jointly by the Oxford Internet Institute and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard Law School. It was generously supported by the ESRC, Afilias, The Economist, Nominet UK and the Public Internet Registry. Oxford Internet Institute The Oxford Internet Institute (OII) has become a leading world centre for the multidisciplinary study of the Internet and society. Its distinctive focus is to understand the social dynamics shaping, and being shaped by, the Internet. The Institute is particularly interested in studying the choices people make about the design, use and regulation of information and communication technologies (ICTs). These ʻdigital choicesʼ are reconfiguring access to people, services, information and technologies; and thereby their relative communicative power in the production, consumption, use and governance of content, services and technology. Linking research to policy and practice The OIIʼs aim is not only to conduct teaching and academic research of the highest quality, but also to influence policy and practice around the world to help people enrich their lives and communities through the effective use of ICTs. To achieve this, it has enthusiastically taken forward the broad conception of the Internet articulated by its initial sponsors: The Shirley Foundation, the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the University of Oxford. -
Patents, Standardization, and the Internet
A TALE OF TWO LAYERS: PATENTS, STANDARDIZATION, AND THE INTERNET † JORGE L. CONTRERAS ABSTRACT In recent years, high-profile lawsuits involving standards-essential patents (SEPs) have made headlines in the United States, Europe, and Asia, leading to a heated public debate regarding the role and impact of patents covering key interoperability standards. Enforcement agencies around the world have investigated and prosecuted alleged violations of competition law and private licensing commitments in connection with SEPs. Yet, while the debate has focused broadly on standardization and patents in the information and communications technology (ICT) sector, commentators have paid little attention to differences among technology layers within ICT. This Article uses both existing and new empirical data to show that patent filing and assertion activity is substantially lower for Internet- related standards than for standards relating to telecommunications and other computing technologies. It analyzes historical and social factors that may have contributed to this divergence focusing on the two princi- pal Internet standards bodies: the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). It counters the dominant narrative that standards and SEPs are necessarily fraught with litigation and thereby necessitate radical systemic change. Instead, it shows that standards policies that de-emphasize patent monetization have led to lower levels of disputes and litigation. It concludes by placing re- cent discussions of patenting and standards within the broader context of openness in network technologies and urges both industry participants and policy makers to look to the success of Internet standardization in a patent-light environment when considering the adoption of new rules and policies. -
Internet Fragmentation Highlighting the Major Technical, Governance and Diplomatic Challenges for U.S
Internet Fragmentation Highlighting the Major Technical, Governance and Diplomatic Challenges for U.S. Policy Makers Jonah Force Hill John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University Spring 2012 Acknowledgements I’d like to thank Professor Joseph Nye for all his advice, support and feedback throughout the writing of this report; Scott Bradner for helping me work through all the technical and political issues at the IETF and other Internet governance forums; and the researchers at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab for their assistance with the IPv4/IPv6 and DNS issues. This report would not have been possible without the generous support of the Minerva Initiative, which supports research conducted at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Harvard Kennedy School through the Explorations in Cyber International Relations project. [This work is funded by the Office of Naval Research under award number N00014-09-1- 0597. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Naval Research.] Internet Fragmentation 2 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 5 TERMS AND ACRONYMS . 7 I. INTRODUCTION: A FRAGMENTED INTERNET A Non-Fragmented Internet? . 10 A Spectrum of Fragmentation . .11 A Layered Approach to Internet Fragmentation . 12 A Classification of Actors and Forces . .13 II. FRAGMENTATION AT THE LOGICAL LAYER: THE DNS A Tacit Agreement . .15 DNS Internationalization and the Threat of Unilateral Root Servers . .17 III. FRAGMENTATION AT THE LOGICAL LAYER: THE PIECEMEAL TRANSITION TO IPV6 The Exhaustion of IPV4 . 21 Staving off the Inevitable . -
The IANA Timeline
January 2017 The History of IANA: An Extended Timeline with Citations and Commentary Contributors Joel Snyder / [email protected] Konstantinos Komaitis / [email protected] Andrei Robachevsky / [email protected] 2 The IANA Transition: An Extended Timeline (Snyder, Komaitis, Robachevsky) This document presents a timeline of the history of IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, from its birth in 1972 to the end of 2016. In addition to highlighting key issues and important events, we have made an attempt to provide unbiased commentary and related historical information to help the reader understand the technical and political context that surrounds the events within. The commentary and contextual information appear as sidebars on either side of the main timeline.1 May 30, 1972 Jon Postel, then a graduate student at UCLA, proposes that a “numbering czar” be appointed to allocate and manage socket numbers for the emerging ARPANET network established by the US Department of Defense’s Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Although the ARPANET was small, some coordination was required to ensure uniqueness, so that two groups weren’t using the same numbers for different things. In December 1972, with the agreement of the research community, Postel becomes the de-facto central authority for assigning and keeping track of identifiers. Over time he also becomes the RFC Editor and maintains the official list of host names and addresses. [1] [2] [3] [4] March, 1976 Dr. Postel, taking his volunteer job as Internet numbers coordinator with him, joins the Information Sciences Institute (ISI) at the University of Southern California (USC), which became the home of IANA for the next 22 years, until 1998. -
Internet-101
Internet-101 Scott Bradner Harvard University 8 April 2011 bstn-inet-law - 1 Copyright © 2011 Scott Bradner Back to the Start - What was there? The Phone Network from The Phone Company - AT&T circuit-based statically predictable calling patterns predictable growth rates assumed absolute requirement for QoS assumption of being carrier-provided a regulated monopoly the largest corporation in the world most of the $ from communications not from other services bstn-inet-law - 2 Copyright © 2011 Scott Bradner Copyright © 2011 Scott Bradner. All rights reserved. 1 Circuits pre setup paths through a network e.g., for a phone call predetermined capacity set up as part of calling process torn down (removed) when call done and capacity released can not establish new circuits if not enough capacity get “fast busy” signal in phone system if circuits full bstn-inet-law - 3 Copyright © 2011 Scott Bradner Packets, Not Circuits Dest Addr Src Addr payload self contained packets multiple unrelated efforts packet switching theory: (Kleinrock) 1961 showed packet switching to be a more efficient switching method than circuits day dreaming: (Licklider’s Galactic Network) 1962 survivable infrastructure for voice and 360 data: (Baron) 1964 make use of remote expensive computers: (Roberts) 1964 but Roberts had the money bstn-inet-law - 4 Copyright © 2011 Scott Bradner Copyright © 2011 Scott Bradner. All rights reserved. 2 Packets! Dest Addr Src Addr payload self contained handled independently of preceding or following packets contains destination and source internetwork