John,
It is
unfortunate that there
were no historians around when the Web was created. There is
material on the
technology of ALOHAnet which later was used in the development
of ARPAnet.
My IP address was published
in the printed “telephone” book of Internet addresses in 1972
when I was
writing image processing code for spy satellites. The code was
run on Illiac IV
which I downloaded via Telnet to the Illiac disks. I later
became the chief
communications architect of the TCP/IP network later known as
Global Command and Control System, designed to
handle Top Secret traffic. Therefore,
I am as likely a historian as any on early TCP work, and I try
to be objective
in recounting the history.
You wrote:
“Unfortunately, the Arpanet protocols were designed in the
1960s by academics who had no experience with such issues.”
This
is true, the
ARPAnet protocols inherited packet switching from ALOHAnet at
the University of
Hawaii, used to communicate between campuses on different
islands. All TCP work
was built on the concept of packets. In this sense packet
switched networks
were initiated by academics. Subsequent work was done in the
commercial sector
by groups like BBN and Honeywell and others.
But this does not
address the concepts of jamming or anti-jamming because it
does not need to. In
fact we were very aware of the need for anti-jamming over
packet networks in
the ‘70’s and had an appropriate response that is still in use
today. That
involves two concepts: “closed user groups” and “black coding”
(or whatever the
variant is called now).
Closed user groups used reserved bandwidth over the
Internet using defined paths through the Internet routers.
These assured that in
the event of a major alert, the Internet would not see any
change in the
traffic across the net. This was ensured because of “black
packets” that
maintained encrypted traffic at 100% regardless of the clear
message content.
Packets are thrown away if they are not used by the
destination node.
You wrote:
“The WWW was also
designed for free sharing among academics who had no experience
with such issues.
When we talk about ontologies for networks, it might be a good
idea to consider
them.”
Not really, the Web was designed for
advertising and commerce by a consortium of companies that
funded the initial W3C work. There were researchers involved in
that work at the commercial companies, but academic work was not
on their minds, that fell to the academic text book publishers
of the AAP. The W3C Consortium members were more interested in
the "pull/push" aspects of hypertext documents. These eventually
resulted in the control of the sessions by websites, not the
users. This was seen recently in the use of "persistent cookies"
which have a life beyond that of the session. Indeed, we have
such controls on the user's web sessions that they may control
may be taken away from entirely.
Rich,
I don't see the role for security mechanisms for ontologies in the
communications stack. They belong in the session or application
layer, unless you can provide a justification. We are bound to see
security mechanisms such as "compartmentalized data" and "closed
users groups" in ontologies in the future. I have done some work
in CALS, the DoD spec that accommodated various security levels
using the "marked data" functions of the CALS tags. These tags are
then converted to standards for secure page (TS, S, C, FOUO)
annotations during page composition.
Likewise, the DoD was using semantic markup as early as 1988 in
some U.S. Army documents.
-John Bottoms
FirstStar Systems
Concord, MA USA
On 11/17/2014 11:12 AM, sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Rich,
That's true.
> Other creatures also jam, avoid jamming, and
> various
tactics and strategies that have worked
> well for them in the
past. Dolphins do it a lot.
> It's a naural development.
Unfortunately, the Arpanet protocols were designed in the 1960s
by
academics who had no experience with such issues.
The WWW was also
designed for free sharing among academics who had no experience
with such
issues. When we talk about ontologies for networks, it might be
a good
idea to consider them.
John
|
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (01)
|