From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Mon Oct 1 07:13:13 2018 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2018 10:13:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] 'Internet' vs 'internet' Message-ID: <20181001141313.7D1FC18C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > A recent change to lowercase "i" in internet is to correspond with AP's > new ruling on the word. Ah, I thought that might be it. The AP, alas, is wrong - and let me explain why. (And if you could pass this along too, I'd be grateful.) Discussion on the internet-history e-mail list brought up what is hopefully a telling point: the words 'internet' and 'Internet' have _different meanings_. Thus, one simply _cannot_ substite one form of the word for the other. So, in the technical world, 'Internet' is likely to persist. I would hope that a magazine focused on science and technology will follow along. Use of 'internet' is as grating to professionals in the information technology world as use of 'germ' in place of 'bacteria' and 'virus' would be among biologists. The argument made in some media spheres (e.g. the NYT) that new technologies are often introduced with a capital, and then lower-cased at they become common ("phonograph" was one example I saw) ignores the facts of i) the different meanings, and ii) the fact there is only one 'Internet' (and thus well suited to following the standard English rule that proper nouns are capitalized), whereas with most new technologies, there are multiple instances (there are - or were! - many phonographs). There are many white houses, but only one White House. Thanks! Noel From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Mon Oct 1 07:25:35 2018 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2018 10:25:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] 'Internet' vs 'internet' Message-ID: <20181001142535.3842218C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Joe Touch > The AP and New York Times need educating on this issue too. I know some people at the NYW, let me ask them how to proceed. > At least one key issue, IMO, is that both variants have distinct meaning. This is a very significant point, one I hadn't clearly recognized. Let's see if it helps. BTW, reading up on this topic, apparently some places capitalize the thing, but not its use in adjectival form. I don't believe this is correct. One doesn't say 'white house hallway', it would (properly) be 'White House hallway'. And 'Internet hosts' has a different meaning (again) from 'internet hosts'. Noel From touch at strayalpha.com Mon Oct 1 07:31:51 2018 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2018 07:31:51 -0700 Subject: [ih] 'Internet' vs 'internet' In-Reply-To: <20181001142535.3842218C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20181001142535.3842218C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: Hi, Noel, Agreed. Note some other issues I?ve seen: "The Internet Protocol? (not Internet protocol or internet protocol), but ?the Internet?s protocols? ?IPsec?, not ?IPSec?, ?IPSEC?, or ?ipsec? Agreed on the adjective issue as well - including titles (Internet evangelist, e.g.) Joe > On Oct 1, 2018, at 7:25 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > >> From: Joe Touch > >> The AP and New York Times need educating on this issue too. > > I know some people at the NYW, let me ask them how to proceed. > >> At least one key issue, IMO, is that both variants have distinct meaning. > > This is a very significant point, one I hadn't clearly recognized. Let's see > if it helps. > > BTW, reading up on this topic, apparently some places capitalize the thing, > but not its use in adjectival form. I don't believe this is correct. One > doesn't say 'white house hallway', it would (properly) be 'White House > hallway'. And 'Internet hosts' has a different meaning (again) from 'internet > hosts'. > > Noel From scott.brim at gmail.com Mon Oct 1 08:30:53 2018 From: scott.brim at gmail.com (Scott Brim) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2018 11:30:53 -0400 Subject: [ih] 'Internet' vs 'internet' In-Reply-To: <20181001142535.3842218C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20181001142535.3842218C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 10:46 AM Noel Chiappa wrote: > BTW, reading up on this topic, apparently some places capitalize the thing, > but not its use in adjectival form. I don't believe this is correct. One > doesn't say 'white house hallway', it would (properly) be 'White House > hallway'. And 'Internet hosts' has a different meaning (again) from > 'internet > hosts'. > What I did for this, to make the meaning crystal clear and perhaps informative, was to avoid adjectival forms. Instead of "Internet hosts", "hosts on the Internet". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pnr at planet.nl Wed Oct 3 03:18:39 2018 From: pnr at planet.nl (Paul Ruizendaal) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 12:18:39 +0200 Subject: [ih] 'Internet' vs 'internet' In-Reply-To: References: <20181001142535.3842218C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: I generally concur with the arguments made, but just to voice a contrarian view: maybe ?Internet' has crowded out ?internet' in its original meaning, along with ?network? changing its meaning over time. One could argue that both ?Internet' and ?internet' now refer to the Internet. What used to be called an internet would now be referred to as a 'network?. What used to be called a network would now be referred to as a network segment, or some such. So we used to speak of an internet of networks, but now we would talk of a network of network segments (in both cases stitched together by switches, bridges and routers). Networks consisting of a single segment, i.e. networks that are not internets are probably few and far between these days. It is not all that uncommon for words to change their meaning over time: https://ideas.ted.com/20-words-that-once-meant-something-very-different/ Paul > On 1 Oct 2018, at 16:31, Joe Touch wrote: > > Hi, Noel, > > Agreed. Note some other issues I?ve seen: > > "The Internet Protocol? (not Internet protocol or internet protocol), but ?the Internet?s protocols? > > ?IPsec?, not ?IPSec?, ?IPSEC?, or ?ipsec? > > Agreed on the adjective issue as well - including titles (Internet evangelist, e.g.) > > Joe > >> On Oct 1, 2018, at 7:25 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> >>> From: Joe Touch >> >>> The AP and New York Times need educating on this issue too. >> >> I know some people at the NYW, let me ask them how to proceed. >> >>> At least one key issue, IMO, is that both variants have distinct meaning. >> >> This is a very significant point, one I hadn't clearly recognized. Let's see >> if it helps. >> >> BTW, reading up on this topic, apparently some places capitalize the thing, >> but not its use in adjectival form. I don't believe this is correct. One >> doesn't say 'white house hallway', it would (properly) be 'White House >> hallway'. And 'Internet hosts' has a different meaning (again) from 'internet >> hosts'. >> >> Noel > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. From agoldmanster at gmail.com Wed Oct 3 06:40:53 2018 From: agoldmanster at gmail.com (Alexander Goldman) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 09:40:53 -0400 Subject: [ih] 'Internet' vs 'internet' In-Reply-To: References: <20181001142535.3842218C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>

Message-ID: Agree. While OED, the authority, makes the distinctions described in this discussion (http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/248411), Webster, which may reflect more common usage, does not: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Internet On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 6:36 AM Paul Ruizendaal wrote: > I generally concur with the arguments made, but just to voice a contrarian > view: maybe ?Internet' has crowded out ?internet' in its original meaning, > along with ?network? changing its meaning over time. > > One could argue that both ?Internet' and ?internet' now refer to the > Internet. What used to be called an internet would now be referred to as a > 'network?. What used to be called a network would now be referred to as a > network segment, or some such. So we used to speak of an internet of > networks, but now we would talk of a network of network segments (in both > cases stitched together by switches, bridges and routers). Networks > consisting of a single segment, i.e. networks that are not internets are > probably few and far between these days. > > It is not all that uncommon for words to change their meaning over time: > https://ideas.ted.com/20-words-that-once-meant-something-very-different/ > > Paul > > > > On 1 Oct 2018, at 16:31, Joe Touch wrote: > > > > Hi, Noel, > > > > Agreed. Note some other issues I?ve seen: > > > > "The Internet Protocol? (not Internet protocol or internet protocol), > but ?the Internet?s protocols? > > > > ?IPsec?, not ?IPSec?, ?IPSEC?, or ?ipsec? > > > > Agreed on the adjective issue as well - including titles (Internet > evangelist, e.g.) > > > > Joe > > > >> On Oct 1, 2018, at 7:25 AM, Noel Chiappa > wrote: > >> > >>> From: Joe Touch > >> > >>> The AP and New York Times need educating on this issue too. > >> > >> I know some people at the NYW, let me ask them how to proceed. > >> > >>> At least one key issue, IMO, is that both variants have distinct > meaning. > >> > >> This is a very significant point, one I hadn't clearly recognized. > Let's see > >> if it helps. > >> > >> BTW, reading up on this topic, apparently some places capitalize the > thing, > >> but not its use in adjectival form. I don't believe this is correct. One > >> doesn't say 'white house hallway', it would (properly) be 'White House > >> hallway'. And 'Internet hosts' has a different meaning (again) from > 'internet > >> hosts'. > >> > >> Noel > > > > > > _______ > > internet-history mailing list > > internet-history at postel.org > > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > > > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From touch at strayalpha.com Wed Oct 3 07:08:38 2018 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 07:08:38 -0700 Subject: [ih] 'Internet' vs 'internet' In-Reply-To: References: <20181001142535.3842218C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>

Message-ID: Webster may be reflecting the AP. We shouldn?t assume deliberate consideration of the alternative where it isn?t in print. Joe > On Oct 3, 2018, at 6:40 AM, Alexander Goldman wrote: > > Agree. While OED, the authority, makes the distinctions described in this discussion (http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/248411), Webster, which may reflect more common usage, does not: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Internet > >> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 6:36 AM Paul Ruizendaal wrote: >> I generally concur with the arguments made, but just to voice a contrarian view: maybe ?Internet' has crowded out ?internet' in its original meaning, along with ?network? changing its meaning over time. >> >> One could argue that both ?Internet' and ?internet' now refer to the Internet. What used to be called an internet would now be referred to as a 'network?. What used to be called a network would now be referred to as a network segment, or some such. So we used to speak of an internet of networks, but now we would talk of a network of network segments (in both cases stitched together by switches, bridges and routers). Networks consisting of a single segment, i.e. networks that are not internets are probably few and far between these days. >> >> It is not all that uncommon for words to change their meaning over time: >> https://ideas.ted.com/20-words-that-once-meant-something-very-different/ >> >> Paul >> >> >> > On 1 Oct 2018, at 16:31, Joe Touch wrote: >> > >> > Hi, Noel, >> > >> > Agreed. Note some other issues I?ve seen: >> > >> > "The Internet Protocol? (not Internet protocol or internet protocol), but ?the Internet?s protocols? >> > >> > ?IPsec?, not ?IPSec?, ?IPSEC?, or ?ipsec? >> > >> > Agreed on the adjective issue as well - including titles (Internet evangelist, e.g.) >> > >> > Joe >> > >> >> On Oct 1, 2018, at 7:25 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> >> >> >>> From: Joe Touch >> >> >> >>> The AP and New York Times need educating on this issue too. >> >> >> >> I know some people at the NYW, let me ask them how to proceed. >> >> >> >>> At least one key issue, IMO, is that both variants have distinct meaning. >> >> >> >> This is a very significant point, one I hadn't clearly recognized. Let's see >> >> if it helps. >> >> >> >> BTW, reading up on this topic, apparently some places capitalize the thing, >> >> but not its use in adjectival form. I don't believe this is correct. One >> >> doesn't say 'white house hallway', it would (properly) be 'White House >> >> hallway'. And 'Internet hosts' has a different meaning (again) from 'internet >> >> hosts'. >> >> >> >> Noel >> > >> > >> > _______ >> > internet-history mailing list >> > internet-history at postel.org >> > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From touch at strayalpha.com Wed Oct 3 08:16:59 2018 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 08:16:59 -0700 Subject: [ih] 'Internet' vs 'internet' In-Reply-To: References: <20181001142535.3842218C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>

Message-ID: <89FA3BAD-E430-4CAE-8E99-9DE1E583C79D@strayalpha.com> PS - my wife (IMO) rightly points out that Webster's may be less ?more common usage? than ?CliffsNotes?, in comparison to the OED ;-) Joe > On Oct 3, 2018, at 7:08 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > > Webster may be reflecting the AP. We shouldn?t assume deliberate consideration of the alternative where it isn?t in print. > > Joe > > On Oct 3, 2018, at 6:40 AM, Alexander Goldman > wrote: > >> Agree. While OED, the authority, makes the distinctions described in this discussion (http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/248411 ), Webster, which may reflect more common usage, does not: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Internet >> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 6:36 AM Paul Ruizendaal > wrote: >> I generally concur with the arguments made, but just to voice a contrarian view: maybe ?Internet' has crowded out ?internet' in its original meaning, along with ?network? changing its meaning over time. >> >> One could argue that both ?Internet' and ?internet' now refer to the Internet. What used to be called an internet would now be referred to as a 'network?. What used to be called a network would now be referred to as a network segment, or some such. So we used to speak of an internet of networks, but now we would talk of a network of network segments (in both cases stitched together by switches, bridges and routers). Networks consisting of a single segment, i.e. networks that are not internets are probably few and far between these days. >> >> It is not all that uncommon for words to change their meaning over time: >> https://ideas.ted.com/20-words-that-once-meant-something-very-different/ >> >> Paul >> >> >> > On 1 Oct 2018, at 16:31, Joe Touch > wrote: >> > >> > Hi, Noel, >> > >> > Agreed. Note some other issues I?ve seen: >> > >> > "The Internet Protocol? (not Internet protocol or internet protocol), but ?the Internet?s protocols? >> > >> > ?IPsec?, not ?IPSec?, ?IPSEC?, or ?ipsec? >> > >> > Agreed on the adjective issue as well - including titles (Internet evangelist, e.g.) >> > >> > Joe >> > >> >> On Oct 1, 2018, at 7:25 AM, Noel Chiappa > wrote: >> >> >> >>> From: Joe Touch > >> >> >> >>> The AP and New York Times need educating on this issue too. >> >> >> >> I know some people at the NYW, let me ask them how to proceed. >> >> >> >>> At least one key issue, IMO, is that both variants have distinct meaning. >> >> >> >> This is a very significant point, one I hadn't clearly recognized. Let's see >> >> if it helps. >> >> >> >> BTW, reading up on this topic, apparently some places capitalize the thing, >> >> but not its use in adjectival form. I don't believe this is correct. One >> >> doesn't say 'white house hallway', it would (properly) be 'White House >> >> hallway'. And 'Internet hosts' has a different meaning (again) from 'internet >> >> hosts'. >> >> >> >> Noel >> > >> > >> > _______ >> > internet-history mailing list >> > internet-history at postel.org >> > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> >> >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >> _______ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jack at 3kitty.org Wed Oct 3 12:12:44 2018 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 12:12:44 -0700 Subject: [ih] 'Internet' vs 'internet' In-Reply-To: <89FA3BAD-E430-4CAE-8E99-9DE1E583C79D@strayalpha.com> References: <20181001142535.3842218C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>

<89FA3BAD-E430-4CAE-8E99-9DE1E583C79D@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: <63d3b412-3e7b-9c2f-0746-2e888cb7b9a1@3kitty.org> IMHO it's more complicated than just defining means of the words. In particular, context changes the meaning, and The Internet (how's that for yet another term) is more than just the Internet. I'm not sure how things have evolved since the 90s when I last delved into the innards. There was of course a public Internet, with all the same residents we know today - CNN, yahoo, etc. But in addition, even then there were many private internets, where people had simply bought equipment and circuits, downloaded appropriate software, and built their own. At Oracle, we had our own world-wide internet, and assigned our own IP addresses, regardless of whether or not the particular number was in use in the public Internet. But we were connected to the Internet through computers which were dual-homed, and thus could receive email, use FTP, etc. as needed. We could interact with the obvious players, e.g., Yahoo!, but also with computers inside our customers' private internets. Other organizations did the same. It had started with military and governmental clones, and corporate IT organizations followed their lead. So, within an organization, the term 'internet' depended on the context. Most commonly, 'the internet' or 'the net' or even 'the Internet' referred to the corporate system, i.e., *our* internet. But if the conversation was about something happening in the broader world outside the organization, 'the internet' et al meant the public Internet. Sometimes we said 'the Oracle Internet' or 'the ARPA internet' to disambiguate. The term 'intranet' was popular for a while. But most commonly you could, and had to, infer the meaning from the context. If anything, it's gotten even more complicated. I've encountered many people who are 'on the Internet', with very different meanings. E.g., to some people, 'on the Internet' means the friends they can interact with on Facebook. Or websites they can use, ... but only if they have an account. I have a tiny internet in my house, with routers, hosts, file servers, TVs, attic fans, and other devices on my internet. They don't have unique world-wide IP addresses (because of NAT). Some of them can communicate with things out on the public Internet. But not all (hopefully). Some can even communicate with computers inside someone else's otherwise private Internet - exactly who my devices talk to is very difficult to tell. Perhaps it's all about connectivity? Does the ability to exchange IP packets define that 2 devices are on the same internet? Or email? Or tweets? Or posts? Or ...? I can establish voice links between my mobile phone, my landline phone and my desktop computer. Does that mean all telephone handsets are on the Internet|internet? I can't send an IP packet from my tablet to the camera on the ISS. But I can fire up an app which puts a realtime image on my tablet of the world flowing by below the ISS right now. Are my tablet and the ISS camera on the Internet? All of this is what I at least think of as 'The Internet', and terminology of the inner pieces is still unclear. What is the Internet? How do you tell if your particular device is connected to it? The dictionary definitions seem incomplete. The Internet is Kleenex becoming kleenex. /Jack Haverty From touch at strayalpha.com Thu Oct 4 07:33:14 2018 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 07:33:14 -0700 Subject: [ih] 'Internet' vs 'internet' In-Reply-To: <63d3b412-3e7b-9c2f-0746-2e888cb7b9a1@3kitty.org> References: <20181001142535.3842218C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>

<89FA3BAD-E430-4CAE-8E99-9DE1E583C79D@strayalpha.com> <63d3b412-3e7b-9c2f-0746-2e888cb7b9a1@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <8D5D1681-FB4D-4CAA-9F43-87BDC114552E@strayalpha.com> > On Oct 3, 2018, at 12:12 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: > > ... > > At Oracle, we had our own world-wide internet, and assigned our own IP > addresses, regardless of whether or not the particular number was in use > in the public Internet. But we were connected to the Internet through > computers which were dual-homed, and thus could receive email, use FTP, > etc. as needed. We could interact with the obvious players, e.g., > Yahoo!, but also with computers inside our customers' private internets. I would call that ?accessing Internet content?, but definitely NOT being ?on the Internet? (note: I appreciate this also applies to nearly all consumer access because of NATs). Being ?on the Internet? IMO has minimum requirements; I presented these as candidate requirements at a meeting in 2004: Internet User ?Bill of Rights" The Internet is an association of communicating parties. Consenting parties should be able to communicate in an unrestricted fashion, insofar as they do not impinge on the corresponding rights of other parties. The following is a list of specific rights to that end: 1. REAL IP: Users have the right to a real IP address, routable from anywhere on the Internet. 2. REAL DNS (& REVERSE-DNS): Users have the right to a valid reverse DNS name for that IP address, and the forward lookup of that name that matches that address. 3. RECEIVE ANY: Users have the right to receive any valid IP packet, using any valid transport protocol on any valid port (if applicable), up to the limits of their local resources and network connection. 4. SEND ANY: Users have the right to send any valid IP packet to any valid real IP address, using any transport protocol, on any valid port (if applicable), provided it uses an inconsequential amount of resources of the network and potential receiver until mutual consent is established. 5. ENFORCEMENT: Users have the right to know the ISP responsible for traffic from any valid IP address, sufficient to register a complaint regarding violations of any of these rules. ?? Everything else is, at best, access to Internet *information* but undermines the ability to participate directly in Internet protocols themselves. That?s sort of like saying you can watch TV, but only from still photos taken across the street through a smudged window. Calling that ?the Internet? isn?t evolution of terms to common usage. It?s misleading advertising. Joe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net Thu Oct 4 09:39:10 2018 From: internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 10:39:10 -0600 Subject: [ih] 'Internet' vs 'internet' In-Reply-To: <8D5D1681-FB4D-4CAA-9F43-87BDC114552E@strayalpha.com> References: <20181001142535.3842218C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>

<89FA3BAD-E430-4CAE-8E99-9DE1E583C79D@strayalpha.com> <63d3b412-3e7b-9c2f-0746-2e888cb7b9a1@3kitty.org> <8D5D1681-FB4D-4CAA-9F43-87BDC114552E@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: <7d441e92-da13-fc78-698e-7a1ef58750db@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 10/04/2018 08:33 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > I would call that ?accessing Internet content?, but definitely NOT > being ?on the Internet? (note: I appreciate this also applies to > nearly all consumer access because of NATs). I mostly agree. Comments inline below. > Being ?on the Internet? IMO has minimum requirements; I presented > these as candidate requirements at a meeting in 2004: > > Internet User ?Bill of Rights" > > The Internet is an association of communicating parties. Consenting > parties should be able to communicate in an unrestricted fashion, insofar > as they do not impinge on the corresponding rights of other parties. The > following is a list of specific rights to that end: > > 1. REAL IP: Users have the right to a real IP address, routable from > anywhere on the Internet. Re: SOHO NAT - I believe typical home users do have access to /a/ single ""unrestricted (more below) IP. Choosing to put a NAT in place themselves via the SOHO NATing router is their choice. They could put a single machine online using the provided IP and not have the restrictions related to NAT. Carrier Grade NAT is different because it is ISP imposed. (Insofar as the subscriber chooses a plan that is subject to CGN.) > 2. REAL DNS (& REVERSE-DNS): Users have the right to a valid reverse > DNS name for that IP address, and the forward lookup of that name that > matches that address. I have no objection to this. But I've never heard about this being something that needed to be on an Internet bill of rights. > 3. RECEIVE ANY: Users have the right to receive any valid IP packet, > using any valid transport protocol on any valid port (if applicable), > up to the limits of their local resources and network connection. I mostly agree with this. > 4. SEND ANY: Users have the right to send any valid IP packet to any > valid real IP address, using any transport protocol, on any valid port > (if applicable), provided it uses an inconsequential amount of resources > of the network and potential receiver until mutual consent is established. I want to agree with this. But I believe that there are some specific types of traffic that the Internet community at large has decided that should be blocked in some situations, particularly end user situations. Specifically: ? SMTP traffic originating from endpoints not passing through a legitimate mail server. (Common effort to block spam and viruses.) ? NetBIOS traffic - ports 137, 138, 139, and 445 I frequently see restricting these nine destination ports as egress filtering imposed by reputable ISPs. I do think that ISP subscribers should have a way to get this filtering removed, particularly for people / SOHOs running on premises mail servers. - I'm okay with that being an upgrade from a residential service plan to a business service plan. (Assuming the cost of doing so is not tantamount to extortion.) > 5. ENFORCEMENT: Users have the right to know the ISP responsible for > traffic from any valid IP address, sufficient to register a complaint > regarding violations of any of these rules. > > ?? > > Everything else is, at best, access to Internet *information* but > undermines the ability to participate directly in Internet protocols > themselves. That?s sort of like saying you can watch TV, but only from > still photos taken across the street through a smudged window. Using IP is different than using / accessing the Internet. There are a number of networks using IP that have zero Internet connectivity. > Calling that ?the Internet? isn?t evolution of terms to common > usage. It?s misleading advertising. -- Grant. . . . unix || die From jack at 3kitty.org Thu Oct 4 11:22:24 2018 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 11:22:24 -0700 Subject: [ih] 'Internet' vs 'internet' In-Reply-To: <8D5D1681-FB4D-4CAA-9F43-87BDC114552E@strayalpha.com> References: <20181001142535.3842218C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>

<89FA3BAD-E430-4CAE-8E99-9DE1E583C79D@strayalpha.com> <63d3b412-3e7b-9c2f-0746-2e888cb7b9a1@3kitty.org> <8D5D1681-FB4D-4CAA-9F43-87BDC114552E@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: <6e78289d-bd29-d3e5-7597-1ff41669855e@3kitty.org> Hi Joe, Your criteria are a good description of what, IIRC, it meant to "be on the Internet" back in the 80s. But today, I suspect the vast majority of people who think their computers/phones/devices are "on the Internet" wouldn't meet one or more of the criteria. So they must be all on something else, if not the Internet? Meanings of words are determined by how people use them. I think "the Internet" changed meanings long ago, and continues to change. /Jack On 10/04/2018 07:33 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > > >> On Oct 3, 2018, at 12:12 PM, Jack Haverty > > wrote: >> >> ... >> >> At Oracle, we had our own world-wide internet, and assigned our own IP >> addresses, regardless of whether or not the particular number was in use >> in the public Internet. ?But we were connected to the Internet through >> computers which were dual-homed, and thus could receive email, use FTP, >> etc. as needed. We could interact with the obvious players, e.g., >> Yahoo!, but also with computers inside our customers' private internets. > > I would call that ?accessing Internet content?, but definitely NOT being > ?on the Internet? (note: I appreciate this also applies to nearly all > consumer access because of NATs). > > Being ?on the Internet? IMO has minimum requirements; I presented these > as candidate requirements at a meeting in 2004: > > Internet User ?Bill of Rights" > > The Internet is an association of communicating parties. Consenting > parties should be able to communicate in an unrestricted fashion, > insofar as they do not impinge on the corresponding rights of other > parties. The following is a list of specific rights to that end: > > 1. REAL IP: Users have the right to a real IP address, routable from > anywhere on the Internet. > > 2. REAL DNS (& REVERSE-DNS): Users have the right to a valid reverse DNS > name for that IP address, and the forward lookup of that name that > matches that address. > > 3. RECEIVE ANY: Users have the right to receive any valid IP packet, > using any valid transport protocol on any valid port (if applicable), up > to the limits of their local resources and network connection. > > 4. SEND ANY: Users have the right to send any valid IP packet to any > valid real IP address, using any transport protocol, on any valid port > (if applicable), provided it uses an inconsequential amount of resources > of the network and potential receiver until mutual consent is established. > > 5. ENFORCEMENT: Users have the right to know the ISP responsible for > traffic from any valid IP address, sufficient to register a complaint > regarding violations of any of these rules.? > > ?? > Everything else is, at best, access to Internet *information* but > undermines the ability to participate directly in Internet protocols > themselves. That?s sort of like saying you can watch TV, but only from > still photos taken across the street through a smudged window. > > Calling that ?the Internet? isn?t evolution of terms to common usage. > It?s misleading advertising. > > Joe > From dhc at dcrocker.net Thu Oct 4 12:03:37 2018 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 12:03:37 -0700 Subject: [ih] 'Internet' vs 'internet' In-Reply-To: <6e78289d-bd29-d3e5-7597-1ff41669855e@3kitty.org> References: <20181001142535.3842218C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>

<89FA3BAD-E430-4CAE-8E99-9DE1E583C79D@strayalpha.com> <63d3b412-3e7b-9c2f-0746-2e888cb7b9a1@3kitty.org> <8D5D1681-FB4D-4CAA-9F43-87BDC114552E@strayalpha.com> <6e78289d-bd29-d3e5-7597-1ff41669855e@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <8b5f0b70-e82f-7c73-95db-c27c78b66137@dcrocker.net> On 10/4/2018 11:22 AM, Jack Haverty wrote: > Your criteria are a good description of what, IIRC, it meant to "be on > the Internet" back in the 80s. merely because of your phrasing... To Be "On" the Internet March 1995 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1775/?include_text=1 d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From touch at strayalpha.com Thu Oct 4 17:37:09 2018 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 17:37:09 -0700 Subject: [ih] 'Internet' vs 'internet' In-Reply-To: <7d441e92-da13-fc78-698e-7a1ef58750db@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> References: <20181001142535.3842218C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>

<89FA3BAD-E430-4CAE-8E99-9DE1E583C79D@strayalpha.com> <63d3b412-3e7b-9c2f-0746-2e888cb7b9a1@3kitty.org> <8D5D1681-FB4D-4CAA-9F43-87BDC114552E@strayalpha.com> <7d441e92-da13-fc78-698e-7a1ef58750db@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: <8A2D0F3F-E4C3-4587-836B-5195CBC63988@strayalpha.com> > On Oct 4, 2018, at 9:39 AM, Grant Taylor wrote: > > On 10/04/2018 08:33 AM, Joe Touch wrote: >> I would call that ?accessing Internet content?, but definitely NOT >> being ?on the Internet? (note: I appreciate this also applies to >> nearly all consumer access because of NATs). > > I mostly agree. > > Comments inline below. > >> Being ?on the Internet? IMO has minimum requirements; I presented >> these as candidate requirements at a meeting in 2004: >> >> Internet User ?Bill of Rights" >> >> The Internet is an association of communicating parties. Consenting >> parties should be able to communicate in an unrestricted fashion, insofar >> as they do not impinge on the corresponding rights of other parties. The >> following is a list of specific rights to that end: >> >> 1. REAL IP: Users have the right to a real IP address, routable from >> anywhere on the Internet. > > Re: SOHO NAT - I believe typical home users do have access to /a/ single > ""unrestricted (more below) IP. Choosing to put a NAT in place > themselves via the SOHO NATing router is their choice. They could put a > single machine online using the provided IP and not have the > restrictions related to NAT. > > Carrier Grade NAT is different because it is ISP imposed. (Insofar as > the subscriber chooses a plan that is subject to CGN.) > >> 2. REAL DNS (& REVERSE-DNS): Users have the right to a valid reverse >> DNS name for that IP address, and the forward lookup of that name that >> matches that address. > > I have no objection to this. But I've never heard about this being > something that needed to be on an Internet bill of rights. It matters for some services. For example, if you access a web server that gates access by DNS name, then your access will take a hit while the DNS times-out. The same is true for some name-based security tokens. > >> 3. RECEIVE ANY: Users have the right to receive any valid IP packet, >> using any valid transport protocol on any valid port (if applicable), >> up to the limits of their local resources and network connection. > > I mostly agree with this. > >> 4. SEND ANY: Users have the right to send any valid IP packet to any >> valid real IP address, using any transport protocol, on any valid port >> (if applicable), provided it uses an inconsequential amount of resources >> of the network and potential receiver until mutual consent is established. > > I want to agree with this. But I believe that there are some specific > types of traffic that the Internet community at large has decided that > should be blocked in some situations, particularly end user situations. The requirement is ?right to send?, not necessarily that it will get through. The point is that you shouldn?t be harassed as ?attacking the network? merely by sending a small number of packets to ANY port or address. IMO, it?s not the network?s job to gate those ports either - port numbers have meaning ONLY at endpoints, so blocking what you think is NetBIOS may be something else (or, more to the point, NetBIOS can be run on any port as long as the endpoints agree, so you?re not ?blocking NetBIOS? by blocking port 137, necessarily. > > Specifically: > > ? SMTP traffic originating from endpoints not passing through a > legitimate mail server. (Common effort to block spam and viruses.) > ? NetBIOS traffic - ports 137, 138, 139, and 445 > > I frequently see restricting these nine destination ports as egress > filtering imposed by reputable ISPs. > > I do think that ISP subscribers should have a way to get this filtering > removed, particularly for people / SOHOs running on premises mail > servers. - I'm okay with that being an upgrade from a residential > service plan to a business service plan. (Assuming the cost of doing so > is not tantamount to extortion.) > >> 5. ENFORCEMENT: Users have the right to know the ISP responsible for >> traffic from any valid IP address, sufficient to register a complaint >> regarding violations of any of these rules. >> >> ?? >> >> Everything else is, at best, access to Internet *information* but >> undermines the ability to participate directly in Internet protocols >> themselves. That?s sort of like saying you can watch TV, but only from >> still photos taken across the street through a smudged window. > > Using IP is different than using / accessing the Internet. There are a > number of networks using IP that have zero Internet connectivity. Oh, certainly - this list is a set of properties that allow you to connect meaningfully to the public Internet. Joe > >> Calling that ?the Internet? isn?t evolution of terms to common >> usage. It?s misleading advertising. > > > > -- > Grant. . . . > unix || die > _______ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From touch at strayalpha.com Thu Oct 4 17:40:40 2018 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 17:40:40 -0700 Subject: [ih] 'Internet' vs 'internet' In-Reply-To: <6e78289d-bd29-d3e5-7597-1ff41669855e@3kitty.org> References: <20181001142535.3842218C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>

<89FA3BAD-E430-4CAE-8E99-9DE1E583C79D@strayalpha.com> <63d3b412-3e7b-9c2f-0746-2e888cb7b9a1@3kitty.org> <8D5D1681-FB4D-4CAA-9F43-87BDC114552E@strayalpha.com> <6e78289d-bd29-d3e5-7597-1ff41669855e@3kitty.org> <8b5f0b70-e82f-7c73-95db-c27c78b66137@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <4D089032-45AD-45EA-A419-65E44D223889@strayalpha.com> Dave, Very nice. If I ever get around to writing that stuff up in more detail, I?ll certainly cite this. Joe > On Oct 4, 2018, at 12:03 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > On 10/4/2018 11:22 AM, Jack Haverty wrote: >> Your criteria are a good description of what, IIRC, it meant to "be on >> the Internet" back in the 80s. > > > merely because of your phrasing... > > To Be "On" the Internet > March 1995 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1775/?include_text=1 > > d/ > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net From tte at cs.fau.de Thu Oct 18 15:03:34 2018 From: tte at cs.fau.de (Toerless Eckert) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 00:03:34 +0200 Subject: [ih] 'Internet' vs 'internet' In-Reply-To: <5988147E-0BCD-44DB-8B74-CFFBA8BF1156@strayalpha.com> References: <20181001142535.3842218C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>

<89FA3BAD-E430-4CAE-8E99-9DE1E583C79D@strayalpha.com> <63d3b412-3e7b-9c2f-0746-2e888cb7b9a1@3kitty.org> <8D5D1681-FB4D-4CAA-9F43-87BDC114552E@strayalpha.com> <6e78289d-bd29-d3e5-7597-1ff41669855e@3kitty.org> <5988147E-0BCD-44DB-8B74-CFFBA8BF1156@strayalpha.com> <20181018220334.zbqzwfvzcrzzvuhb@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <8ed7212c-e69f-f4ef-46cc-05823f1f9afe@gmail.com> <092618B7-1ADD-46F9-B490-5C8754B71FCA@strayalpha.com> <20181019125824.lzackzjgodnly3ac@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: > On Oct 19, 2018, at 5:58 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 09:41:38PM -0700, Joe Touch wrote: >> Interesting and absolutely complex - but perhaps because it takes pains to explain all the varieties of ???how??? rather than focusing on a much simpler ???what???. >> >> IMO, Internet access is defined by two properties, each of which can be ???full???, ???partial???, or ???none???: >> >> FIRST CLASS - Internet protocol participant >> these nodes can participate and Internet protocol network in any role (client, server, peer) for any service AND can reach the root DNS servers > > Agreed. This is i think what your initial "On the Internet" means, > and thats what i thought was easy and good to "The Internet" / "The IPv6 > Internet" > >> SECOND CLASS - Internet information access >> these nodes can access information provided by any node in set (A), but are not themselves in set (A) > > Right. And "Internet Access" might be the simple term to use here. > Not sure about exact definition. "can exchange data" might be a > better term because i fear "information" would be read by non-technical > people more like "Facebook" or the like. > >> Most home Internet service is ???partial SECOND CLASS???, i.e., can???t run as a server at all (so not FIRST CLASS) and some ports blocked for SECOND CLASS. >> >> However, most hosted web servers are ???partial FIRST CLASS???, i.e., run as a server but not on all ports (most hosting services block certain ports). >> >> AFAICT, the only meaningful variants are: >> full first class (which implies full second class too, trivially) >> partial first class (which implies full second class because you can always contact a first class node on at least one port and get access to anything) >> full second class (implies no first class) >> partial second class (implies no first class) >> no access at all > > Why introduce partial first class ? Any form of data access to > the Internet that does not fully meet the definitions of > "On the Internet" is simply "Internet Access?. Largely to allow for the case where some ports are blocked and to avoid a debate on ?which ports? and whether they?re important or not. See below regarding home gateways. >> >> Further, note that full first-class nodes can help other nodes become any class except itself. > > Well, the interesting explanations for laymen are something like: To me, FWIW, a layperson only needs to know: - can you control your content, how it is served, and how it is logged 100%? (first class) - can you get at Internet data managed by others, either reading or writing that data, but not under your control? (second class) We can?t get down into the definition of a ?host? for laypeople. > A users computer is called a "Host" in the Internet technology. > A Computer/Host is called "on the Internet" if its connection to the > Internet meets the following requirements ... > > A computer "On the Internet" can only extend the Internet > to allow more computers to be "on the Internet" if it can > become a "Router on the Internet?. Strictly speaking, routers don?t need IP addresses themselves (unless they start also acting as hosts, e.g., to participate in protocols for in-band configuration, etc.) > A home gateway for example > can not do this when it just has IP because then it > only gets one IP address and because to be "on the internet" > every computer needs its own Internet IP address, the home > gateway needs to give private IP addresses to computer behind > it, granting them only more limited "access to the Internet?. A home gateway doesn?t 'give away' addresses; it translates addresses and ports. Arguably, if the public side of a home gateway has a real, public IP address, then NAT?d devices behind it CAN be ?partial first class?, e.g., for some subset of ports assigned to each private-side host. > With IPv6 on the other hand, the home gateway can become > a router "On the (IPv6) Internet" and make computers behind > it be Hosts "On the (IPv6) Internet?. IPv6 alone doesn?t magically allow a home gateway to become a router; this still requires that your ISP not block the addresses of your ?private side? hosts (which they can do, and I suspect will do unless you pay more money for ??commercial service?). Yes, the point of IPv6 is to allow that to happen, but ISPs can still interfere... Joe > > >> I would thus define "the Internet" as "those nodes that are first-class AND connected to the DNS roots". >> >> I would never say that second class nodes are ???on the Internet???, but rather ???can access the Internet???. > > Right > > Cheers > Toerless > >> Joe >> >> >>> On Oct 18, 2018, at 5:47 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> >>> Toerless, >>> >>> Have a look at RFC4084. To me, that explains why this is a more tricky >>> question than you might think, and it might have wider implications for >>> consumer protection, monopolistic behaviours, and whatever interpretation >>> you put on the phrase "network neutrality". >>> >>> Another interesting thing to think about is the question: How many >>> hosts are there on the Internet? Historically (30 years ago) that >>> was a meaningful question to which you could answer "about 56000". >>> Today?? >>> >>> In the room I'm sitting in there are currently 4 devices switched on >>> running TCP/IP. One of them has unique IPv4 and IPv6 addresses; three >>> others have NATted IPv4 and native IPv6 addresses. So if you count the >>> routed IPv4 Internet, there's 1 apparent host. If you count the routed >>> IPv6 Internet, there are 3 hosts and a router. >>> >>> Regards >>> Brian >>> >>> On 2018-10-19 11:03, Toerless Eckert wrote: >>>> IMHO it does not make sense at all to talk about the "Internet" as >>>> a scientific/technical term (as opposed to pure marketing) unless >>>> someone provides an agreed upon definition. The absence of a clear >>>> definition ha always annoyed me. >>>> >>>> I like the idea of defining "The Internet" as the set of IP hosts >>>> that are "on the Internet" and the transit infraatructure >>>> connecting them. Its also fine to add to such a document >>>> definitions for "access to the Internet" such as via NAT, >>>> application layer gateways or the like. Those add-on terms wouldn't >>>> be so important and probably harder to categorize given all the >>>> variety of constraints vs. being "on the Internet". >>>> >>>> Why has nobody tried to revisit that subject in an RFC after rfc1775 ? >>>> None of the discussion points on this thread seem to be blockers >>>> but IMHO easily aligned. So i wonder whats the big blocker. >>>> Just nobody who cares enough about precise terminology ? >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Toerless >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 05:40:40PM -0700, Joe Touch wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 4, 2018, at 11:22 AM, Jack Haverty wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Joe, >>>>>> >>>>>> Your criteria are a good description of what, IIRC, it meant to "be on >>>>>> the Internet" back in the 80s. But today, I suspect the vast majority >>>>>> of people who think their computers/phones/devices are "on the Internet" >>>>>> wouldn't meet one or more of the criteria. So they must be all on >>>>>> something else, if not the Internet? >>>>> >>>>> Lots of people use airplanes to get access to goods without traveling on an airplane themselves. >>>>> >>>>> The same is true here. There???s a distinct difference between ???access to Internet information??? and ???Internet access???. The latter allows users to run their own servers; the former is dependent on a ???distilled??? product only. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Meanings of words are determined by how people use them. I think "the >>>>>> Internet" changed meanings long ago, and continues to change. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Agreed, but lots of people learned the difference between AOL and Internet access too, One was distilled services presented through a specific interface; the other is extensible based on agreement of the endpoints. If we value that latter principle, we need to encourage the most complete Internet access we can - that???s partly what net neutrality is all about. >>>>> >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>>>> /Jack >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/04/2018 07:33 AM, Joe Touch wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Oct 3, 2018, at 12:12 PM, Jack Haverty >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At Oracle, we had our own world-wide internet, and assigned our own IP >>>>>>>> addresses, regardless of whether or not the particular number was in use >>>>>>>> in the public Internet. But we were connected to the Internet through >>>>>>>> computers which were dual-homed, and thus could receive email, use FTP, >>>>>>>> etc. as needed. We could interact with the obvious players, e.g., >>>>>>>> Yahoo!, but also with computers inside our customers' private internets. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would call that ???accessing Internet content???, but definitely NOT being >>>>>>> ???on the Internet??? (note: I appreciate this also applies to nearly all >>>>>>> consumer access because of NATs). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Being ???on the Internet??? IMO has minimum requirements; I presented these >>>>>>> as candidate requirements at a meeting in 2004: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Internet User ???Bill of Rights" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Internet is an association of communicating parties. Consenting >>>>>>> parties should be able to communicate in an unrestricted fashion, >>>>>>> insofar as they do not impinge on the corresponding rights of other >>>>>>> parties. The following is a list of specific rights to that end: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. REAL IP: Users have the right to a real IP address, routable from >>>>>>> anywhere on the Internet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. REAL DNS (& REVERSE-DNS): Users have the right to a valid reverse DNS >>>>>>> name for that IP address, and the forward lookup of that name that >>>>>>> matches that address. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. RECEIVE ANY: Users have the right to receive any valid IP packet, >>>>>>> using any valid transport protocol on any valid port (if applicable), up >>>>>>> to the limits of their local resources and network connection. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 4. SEND ANY: Users have the right to send any valid IP packet to any >>>>>>> valid real IP address, using any transport protocol, on any valid port >>>>>>> (if applicable), provided it uses an inconsequential amount of resources >>>>>>> of the network and potential receiver until mutual consent is established. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 5. ENFORCEMENT: Users have the right to know the ISP responsible for >>>>>>> traffic from any valid IP address, sufficient to register a complaint >>>>>>> regarding violations of any of these rules. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?????? >>>>>>> Everything else is, at best, access to Internet *information* but >>>>>>> undermines the ability to participate directly in Internet protocols >>>>>>> themselves. That???s sort of like saying you can watch TV, but only from >>>>>>> still photos taken across the street through a smudged window. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Calling that ???the Internet??? isn???t evolution of terms to common usage. >>>>>>> It???s misleading advertising. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Joe >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> _______ >>>>> internet-history mailing list >>>>> internet-history at postel.org >>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. >>>> >>>> > > -- > --- > tte at cs.fau.de From tte at cs.fau.de Fri Oct 19 08:59:05 2018 From: tte at cs.fau.de (Toerless Eckert) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 17:59:05 +0200 Subject: [ih] 'Internet' vs 'internet' In-Reply-To: References: <89FA3BAD-E430-4CAE-8E99-9DE1E583C79D@strayalpha.com> <63d3b412-3e7b-9c2f-0746-2e888cb7b9a1@3kitty.org> <8D5D1681-FB4D-4CAA-9F43-87BDC114552E@strayalpha.com> <6e78289d-bd29-d3e5-7597-1ff41669855e@3kitty.org> <5988147E-0BCD-44DB-8B74-CFFBA8BF1156@strayalpha.com> <20181018220334.zbqzwfvzcrzzvuhb@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <8ed7212c-e69f-f4ef-46cc-05823f1f9afe@gmail.com> <092618B7-1ADD-46F9-B490-5C8754B71FCA@strayalpha.com> <20181019125824.lzackzjgodnly3ac@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: <20181019155905.pirkb5wygdgqd4ry@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 08:11:23AM -0700, Joe Touch wrote: > > Why introduce partial first class ? Any form of data access to > > the Internet that does not fully meet the definitions of > > "On the Internet" is simply "Internet Access???. > > Largely to allow for the case where some ports are blocked and to avoid a debate on ???which ports??? and whether they???re important or not. See below regarding home gateways. So whats the unambiguous distinction between partial first class and second class ? > >> Further, note that full first-class nodes can help other nodes become any class except itself. > > > > Well, the interesting explanations for laymen are something like: > > To me, FWIW, a layperson only needs to know: > > - can you control your content, how it is served, and how it is logged 100%? (first class) > - can you get at Internet data managed by others, either reading or writing that data, but not under your control? (second class) Yeah not very happy with this. Definitely difficult to find the most simple laymen example of benefits for being "On the Internet" vs. "Access to the Internet". Maybe: The Internet is a place of innovation. If you have a computer "On the Internet" then the only roadblock to partake in a new service on the Internet is whether your Computer is supported. If your computer just has "Access to the Internet", then there will be additional equipment that may inhibit your computer to use the service. For example if your computer has "Access to the Internet" via a home gateway with IPv4, your new service may require you to buy a new home gateway, or maybe there will never be a home gateway through which the new service will work. If your computer is "On the Internet" because you use IPv6 across the Home Gateway, there is no such problem. Of course, most new services try to design themselves so that they work across all those old gateways and allow use from as many as possible "Access to the Internet" computers, but that really stifles innovation, creates security and privacy risks, makes services more expensive and complex. > We can???t get down into the definition of a ???host??? for laypeople. No, not the definition. Just introducing the term as equivalent to a computer "On the Internet", which IMHO is good enough. > > A computer "On the Internet" can only extend the Internet > > to allow more computers to be "on the Internet" if it can > > become a "Router on the Internet???. > > Strictly speaking, routers don???t need IP addresses themselves (unless they start also acting as hosts, e.g., to participate in protocols for in-band configuration, etc.) Sure. I didn't say they need IP addresses. > > A home gateway for example > > can not do this when it just has IP because then it > > only gets one IP address and because to be "on the internet" > > every computer needs its own Internet IP address, the home > > gateway needs to give private IP addresses to computer behind > > it, granting them only more limited "access to the Internet???. > > A home gateway doesn???t 'give away' addresses; it translates addresses and ports. Sure, but it gives the rfc1918 address (e.g.: via DHCP) to the computers with "access to the Internet". > Arguably, if the public side of a home gateway has a real, public IP address, then NAT???d devices behind it CAN be ???partial first class???, e.g., for some subset of ports assigned to each private-side host. See above. Not enough gained IMHO to define this "partial class A" rarther makes the definition of "On the Internet" unnnecessarily more complex and soft edged. > > With IPv6 on the other hand, the home gateway can become > > a router "On the (IPv6) Internet" and make computers behind > > it be Hosts "On the (IPv6) Internet???. > > IPv6 alone doesn???t magically allow a home gateway to become a router; this still requires that your ISP not block the addresses of your ???private side??? hosts (which they can do, and I suspect will do unless you pay more money for ??????commercial service???). Yes, the point of IPv6 is to allow that to happen, but ISPs can still interfere... Sure. Though this was implied by 'can'. Else it would have ben 'can always'. Cheers Toerless > Joe > > > > > > >> I would thus define "the Internet" as "those nodes that are first-class AND connected to the DNS roots". > >> > >> I would never say that second class nodes are ???on the Internet???, but rather ???can access the Internet???. > > > > Right > > > > Cheers > > Toerless > > > >> Joe > >> > >> > >>> On Oct 18, 2018, at 5:47 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >>> > >>> Toerless, > >>> > >>> Have a look at RFC4084. To me, that explains why this is a more tricky > >>> question than you might think, and it might have wider implications for > >>> consumer protection, monopolistic behaviours, and whatever interpretation > >>> you put on the phrase "network neutrality". > >>> > >>> Another interesting thing to think about is the question: How many > >>> hosts are there on the Internet? Historically (30 years ago) that > >>> was a meaningful question to which you could answer "about 56000". > >>> Today?? > >>> > >>> In the room I'm sitting in there are currently 4 devices switched on > >>> running TCP/IP. One of them has unique IPv4 and IPv6 addresses; three > >>> others have NATted IPv4 and native IPv6 addresses. So if you count the > >>> routed IPv4 Internet, there's 1 apparent host. If you count the routed > >>> IPv6 Internet, there are 3 hosts and a router. > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> Brian > >>> > >>> On 2018-10-19 11:03, Toerless Eckert wrote: > >>>> IMHO it does not make sense at all to talk about the "Internet" as > >>>> a scientific/technical term (as opposed to pure marketing) unless > >>>> someone provides an agreed upon definition. The absence of a clear > >>>> definition ha always annoyed me. > >>>> > >>>> I like the idea of defining "The Internet" as the set of IP hosts > >>>> that are "on the Internet" and the transit infraatructure > >>>> connecting them. Its also fine to add to such a document > >>>> definitions for "access to the Internet" such as via NAT, > >>>> application layer gateways or the like. Those add-on terms wouldn't > >>>> be so important and probably harder to categorize given all the > >>>> variety of constraints vs. being "on the Internet". > >>>> > >>>> Why has nobody tried to revisit that subject in an RFC after rfc1775 ? > >>>> None of the discussion points on this thread seem to be blockers > >>>> but IMHO easily aligned. So i wonder whats the big blocker. > >>>> Just nobody who cares enough about precise terminology ? > >>>> > >>>> Cheers > >>>> Toerless > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 05:40:40PM -0700, Joe Touch wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Oct 4, 2018, at 11:22 AM, Jack Haverty wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Joe, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Your criteria are a good description of what, IIRC, it meant to "be on > >>>>>> the Internet" back in the 80s. But today, I suspect the vast majority > >>>>>> of people who think their computers/phones/devices are "on the Internet" > >>>>>> wouldn't meet one or more of the criteria. So they must be all on > >>>>>> something else, if not the Internet? > >>>>> > >>>>> Lots of people use airplanes to get access to goods without traveling on an airplane themselves. > >>>>> > >>>>> The same is true here. There???s a distinct difference between ???access to Internet information??? and ???Internet access???. The latter allows users to run their own servers; the former is dependent on a ???distilled??? product only. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Meanings of words are determined by how people use them. I think "the > >>>>>> Internet" changed meanings long ago, and continues to change. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Agreed, but lots of people learned the difference between AOL and Internet access too, One was distilled services presented through a specific interface; the other is extensible based on agreement of the endpoints. If we value that latter principle, we need to encourage the most complete Internet access we can - that???s partly what net neutrality is all about. > >>>>> > >>>>> Joe > >>>>> > >>>>>> /Jack > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 10/04/2018 07:33 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Oct 3, 2018, at 12:12 PM, Jack Haverty >>>>>>>> > wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> At Oracle, we had our own world-wide internet, and assigned our own IP > >>>>>>>> addresses, regardless of whether or not the particular number was in use > >>>>>>>> in the public Internet. But we were connected to the Internet through > >>>>>>>> computers which were dual-homed, and thus could receive email, use FTP, > >>>>>>>> etc. as needed. We could interact with the obvious players, e.g., > >>>>>>>> Yahoo!, but also with computers inside our customers' private internets. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would call that ???accessing Internet content???, but definitely NOT being > >>>>>>> ???on the Internet??? (note: I appreciate this also applies to nearly all > >>>>>>> consumer access because of NATs). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Being ???on the Internet??? IMO has minimum requirements; I presented these > >>>>>>> as candidate requirements at a meeting in 2004: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Internet User ???Bill of Rights" > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The Internet is an association of communicating parties. Consenting > >>>>>>> parties should be able to communicate in an unrestricted fashion, > >>>>>>> insofar as they do not impinge on the corresponding rights of other > >>>>>>> parties. The following is a list of specific rights to that end: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 1. REAL IP: Users have the right to a real IP address, routable from > >>>>>>> anywhere on the Internet. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2. REAL DNS (& REVERSE-DNS): Users have the right to a valid reverse DNS > >>>>>>> name for that IP address, and the forward lookup of that name that > >>>>>>> matches that address. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 3. RECEIVE ANY: Users have the right to receive any valid IP packet, > >>>>>>> using any valid transport protocol on any valid port (if applicable), up > >>>>>>> to the limits of their local resources and network connection. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 4. SEND ANY: Users have the right to send any valid IP packet to any > >>>>>>> valid real IP address, using any transport protocol, on any valid port > >>>>>>> (if applicable), provided it uses an inconsequential amount of resources > >>>>>>> of the network and potential receiver until mutual consent is established. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 5. ENFORCEMENT: Users have the right to know the ISP responsible for > >>>>>>> traffic from any valid IP address, sufficient to register a complaint > >>>>>>> regarding violations of any of these rules. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ?????? > >>>>>>> Everything else is, at best, access to Internet *information* but > >>>>>>> undermines the ability to participate directly in Internet protocols > >>>>>>> themselves. That???s sort of like saying you can watch TV, but only from > >>>>>>> still photos taken across the street through a smudged window. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Calling that ???the Internet??? isn???t evolution of terms to common usage. > >>>>>>> It???s misleading advertising. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Joe > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>>> _______ > >>>>> internet-history mailing list > >>>>> internet-history at postel.org > >>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >>>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance. > >>>> > >>>> > > > > -- > > --- > > tte at cs.fau.de -- --- tte at cs.fau.de From julf at julf.com Wed Oct 24 12:27:46 2018 From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 21:27:46 +0200 Subject: [ih] 'Internet' vs 'internet' In-Reply-To: <20181018220334.zbqzwfvzcrzzvuhb@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> References: <20181001142535.3842218C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>