Nettimers--I'm preparing a book manuscript on computer protocols and
how they establish control in the seemingly anarchical Internet. I'm
hoping that some of you will be able to read my draft chapter below on
the institutionalization of protocols via standards bodies. Please
point out my mistakes before i send it to my editor! :-) thanks, -ag
+ + +
In this day and age, technical protocols and standards are established
by an self-selected oligarchy of scientists consisting largely of
electrical engineers and computer specialists. Composed of a patchwork
of many professional bodies, working groups, committees and
subcommittees, this technocratic elite toils away, mostly voluntarily,
in an effort to hammer out solutions to advancements in technology.
Many of them are university professors. Most all of them either work in
industry, or have some connection to it.
Like the philosophy of protocol itself, membership in this
technocratic ruling class is open. �Anyone with something to contribute
could come to the party,�[1] wrote one early participant. But, to be
sure, because of the technical sophistication needed to participate,
this loose consortium of decision-makers tends to fall into a
relatively homogenous social class: highly educated, altruistic,
liberal-minded science professionals from modernized societies around
the globe.
And sometimes not so far around the globe. Of the twenty-five or so
original protocol pioneers, three of them�Vint Cerf, Jon Postel and
Steve Crocker�all came from a single high school in Los Angeles�s San
Fernando Valley.[2] Furthermore during his long tenure as RFC Editor,
Postel was the single gatekeeper through whom all protocol RFCs passed
before they could be published.
Internet historians Katie Hafner and Matthew Lyon describe this group
as �an ad-hocracy of intensely creative, sleep-deprived, idiosyncratic,
well-meaning computer geniuses.�[3]
There are few outsiders in this community. Here the specialists run
the show. To put it another way, while the Internet is used daily by
vast swaths of diverse communities, the standards-makers at the heart
of this technology are a small entrenched group of techno-elite peers.
The reasons for this are largely practical. �Most users are not
interested in the details of Internet protocols,� Vint Cerf observes,
�they just want the system to work.�[4] Or as former IEFT Chair Fred
Baker reminds us: �The average user doesn't write code. [...] If their
needs are met, they don't especially care how they were met.�[5]
���� So who actually writes these technical protocols, where did they
come from, and how are they used in the real world? They are found in
the fertile amalgamation of computers and software that constitutes the
majority of servers, routers and other internet-enabled machines. A
signifigant portion of these computers were, and still are, Unix-based
systems. A signifigant portion of the software was, and still is,
largely written in the C or C++ languages. All of these elements have
enjoyed unique histories as protocological technologies.
The Unix operating system was developed at Bell Telephone Laboratories
by Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie and others beginning in 1969 and
continuing development into the early �70s. After the operating
system�s release the lab�s parent company, AT&T, began to license and
sell Unix as a commercial software product. But, for various legal
reasons, the company admitted they �had no intention of pursuing
software as a business.�[6] Unix was indeed sold by AT&T, but simply
�as is� with no advertising, technical support or other fanfare. This
contributed to its widespread adoption by universities who found in
Unix a cheap but useful operating system that could be easily
experimented with, modified and improved.
In January 1974, Unix was installed at the University of California at
Berkeley. Bill Joy and others began developing aspin-off of the
operating system which became known as BSD (Berkeley Software
Distribution).
Unix was particularly successful because of its close connection to
networking and the adoption of basic interchange standards. �Perhaps
the most important contribution to the proliferation of Unix was the
growth of networking,�[7] writes Unix historian Peter Salus. By the
early �80s, the TCP/IP networking suite was included in BSD Unix.
Unix was designed with openness in mind. The source code�written in C,
which was also developed during 1971-1973�is easily accessible, meaning
a higher degree of technical transparency.
The standardization of the C programming language began in 1983 with
the establishment of an American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
committee called �X3J11.� The ANSI report was finished in 1989 and
subsequently accepted as a standard by the international consortium ISO
in 1990.[8] Starting in 1979, Bjarne Stroustrup developed C++, which
added the concept of classes to the original C language. (In fact,
Stroustrup�s first nickname for his new language was �C with Classes.�)
ANSI standardized the C++ language in 1990.
C++ has been tremendously successful as a language. �The spread was
world-wide from the beginning,� recalled Stroustrup. �[I]t fit into
more environments with less trouble than just about anything else.�[9]
Just like a protocol.
It is not only computers that experience standardization and mass
adoption. Over the years many technologies have followed this same
trajectory. The process of standards creation is, in many ways, simply
the recognition of technologies that have experienced success in the
market place. One example is the VHS video format developed by JVC
(with Matsushita), which beat out Sony�s Betamax format in the consumer
video market. Betamax was considered by some to be a superior
technology (an urban myth, claim some engineers) because it stored
video in a higher-quality format. But the trade off was that Betamax
tapes tended to be shorter in length. In the late �70s when VHS
launched, the VHS tape allowed for up to two hours of recording time,
while Betamax only one hour. �By mid 1979 VHS was outselling Beta by
more than 2 to 1 in the US.�[10] When Betamax caught up in length (to
three hours) it had already lost a foothold in the market. VHS would
counter Betamax by increasing to four hours and later eight.
Some have suggested that it was the pornography industry, who favored
VHS over Betamax, that provided it with legions of early adopters and
proved the long term viability of the format.[11]
But perhaps the most convincing argument is the one that points out
JVC�s economic strategy which included aggressive licensing of the VHS
format to competitors. JVC�s behavior is pseudo-protocological. They
licensed the technical specifications for VHS to other vendors. They
also immediately established manufacturing and distribution supply
chains for VHS tape manufacturing and retail sales. In the meantime
Sony tried to fortify its market position by keeping Betamax to itself.
As one analyst writes:
�
Three contingent early differences in strategy were crucial. First,
Sony decided to proceed without major co-sponsors for it Betamax
system, while JVC shared VHS with several major competitors. Second,
the VHS consortium quickly installed a large manufacturing capacity.
Third, Sony opted for a more compact cassette, while JVC chose a longer
playing time for VHS, which proved more important to most customers.[12]
�
JVC deliberately sacrificed larger profit margins by keeping prices low
and licensing to competitors. This was in order to grow their market
share. The rationale was that establishing a standard was the most
important thing, and as they approached that goal, it would create a
positive feedback loop that would further beat out the competition.
���� The VHS/Betamax story is a good example from the commercial sector
for how one format can beat out another format and become an industry
standard. This example is interesting because it shows that
protocological behavior (giving out your technology broadly even if it
means giving it to your competitors) often wins out over proprietary
behavior. The Internet protocols function in a similar way, to the
degree that they have become industry standards not through a result of
propriety market forces, but due to broad open initiatives of free
exchange and debate. This was not exactly the case with VHS, but the
analogy is useful nevertheless.
���� This type of corporate squabbling over video formats has since
been essentially erased from the world stage with the advent of DVD.
This new format was reached through consensus from industry leaders and
hence does not suffer from direct competition by any similar technology
in the way that VHS and Betamax did. Such consensus characterizes the
large majority of processes in place today around the world for
determining technical standards.
���� Many of today�s technical standards can be attributed to the
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, or IEEE (pronounced
�eye triple e�). In 1963 IEEE was created through the merging of two
professional societies. They were the American Institute of Electrical
Engineers (AIEE) founded in New York on May 13, 1884 (by a group which
included Thomas Edison) and the Institute of Radio Engineers (IRE)
founded in 1912.[13] Today the IEEE has over 330,000 members in 150
countries. It is the world�s largest professional society in any field.
The IEEE works in conjunction with industry to circulate knowledge of
technical advances, to recognize individual merit through the awarding
of prizes, and to set technical standards for new technologies. In this
sense the IEEE is the world�s largest and most important protocological
society.
Composed of many chapters, sub-groups and committees, the IEEE�s
Communications Society is perhaps the most interestingarea vis-a-vis
computer networking. They establish standards in many common areas of
digital communication including digital subscriber lines (DSLs) and
wireless telephony.
IEEE standards often become international standards. Examples include
the �802� series of standards which govern network communications
protocols. These include standards for Ethernet[14] (the most common
local area networking protocol in use today), Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and
others.
�The IEEE,� Paul Baran observed, �has been a major factor in the
development of communications technology.�[15] Indeed Baran�s own
theories, which eventually would spawn the Internet, were published
within the IEEE community even as they were published by his own
employer, the RAND Corporation.
���� Active within the United States are the National Institute for
Standardization and Technology (NIST) and American National Standards
Institute (ANSI). The century old NIST, formerly known as the National
Bureau of Standards, is a federal agency that develops and promotes
technological standards. Because they are a federal agency and not a
professional society, they have no membership per se. They are also
non-regulatory, meaning that they do not enforce laws or establish
mandatory standards which must be adopted. Much of their budget goes
into supporting NIST research laboratories as well as various outreach
programs.
���� ANSI, formerly called the American Standards Association, is
responsible for aggregating and coordinating the standards creation
process in the US. They are the private sector counterpart to NIST.
While they do not create any standards themselves, they are a conduit
for federally-accredited organizations in the field who are developing
technical standards. The accredited standards developers must follow
certain rules designed to keep the process open and equitable for all
interested parties. ANSI then verifies that the rules have been
followed by the developing organization before the proposed standard is
adopted.
ANSI is also responsible for articulating a national standards
strategy for the US. This strategy helps ANSI advocate in the
international arena on behalf of United States interests. ANSI is the
only organization that can approve standards as American national
standards.
���� Many of ANSI�s rules for maintaining integrity and quality in the
standards development process revolve around principles of openness and
transparency and hence conform with much of what I have already said
about protocol. ANSI writes that:
�
������ Decisions are reached through consensus among those affected.
������ Participation is open to all affected interests. [...]
������ The process is transparent � information on the process and
progress is directly available. [...]
������ The process is flexible, allowing the use of different
methodologies to meet the needs of different technology and product
sectors.[16]
�
Besides being consensus-driven, open, transparent and flexible, ANSI
standards are also voluntary, which means that, like NIST, no one is
bound by law to adopt them. Voluntary adoption in the marketplace is
the ultimate test of a standard. Standards may disappear in the advent
of a new superior technology or simply with the passage of time.
Voluntary standards have many advantages. By not forcing industry to
implement the standard the burden of success lies in the marketplace.
And in fact, proven success in the marketplace generally preexists the
creation of a standard. The behavior is emergent, not imposed.
���� On the international stage several other standards bodies become
important. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) focuses on
radio and telecommunications, including voice telephony, communications
satellites, data networks, television and in the old days, the
telegraph. Established in 1865 they claim to be the world�s oldest
international organization.
The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) prepares and
publishes international standards in the area of electrical
technologies including magnetics, electronics and energy production.
They cover everything from screw threads to quality management systems.
IEC is comprised of national committees. (The national committee
representing the US is administered by ANSI.)�
���� Another important international organization is ISO, also known as
the International Organization for Standardization.[17] Like the IEC,
ISO grows out of the electro-technical field and was formed after World
War II to �facilitate the international coordination and unification of
industrial standards.�[18] Based in Geneva, but a federation of over
140 national standards bodies including the American ANSI and the
British Standards Institution (BSI), their goal is to establish
vendor-neutral technical standards. Like the other international
bodies, standards adopted by the ISO are recognized worldwide.
���� Also like other standards bodies, ISO standards are developed
through a process of consensus-building. Their standards are based on
voluntary participation and thus the adoption of ISO standards is
driven largely by market forces. (As opposed to mandatory standards
which are implemented in response a governmental regulatory mandate.)
Once established, ISO standards can have massive market penetration.
For example the ISO standard for film speed (100, 200, 400, etc.) is
used globally by millions of consumers.
���� Another ISO standard of far-reaching importance is the Open
Systems Interconnection (OSI) Reference Model. Developed in 1978, the
OSI Reference Model is a technique for classifying all networking
activity into seven abstract layers. Each layer describes a different
segment of the technology behind networked communication, as described
in various chapters above.
�
���� Layer 7�� Application
���� Layer 6�� Presentation
���� Layer 5 � Session
���� Layer 4�� Transport
���� Layer 3�� Network
���� Layer 2�� Data link
���� Layer 1�� Physical
�
This classification helps organize the process of standardization into
distinct areas of activity, and is relied on heavily by those creating
standards for the Internet.
In 1987 the ISO and the IEC recognized that some of their efforts were
beginning to overlap. They decided to establish an institutional
framework to help coordinate their efforts and formed a joint committee
to deal with information technology called the Joint Technical
Committee 1 (JTC 1). ISO and IEC both participate in the JTC 1, as well
as liaisons from Internet-oriented consortia such as the IEFT. ITU
members, IEEE members and others from other standards bodies also
participate here. Individuals may sit on several committees in several
different standards bodies, or simply attend as ex officio members, to
increase inter-organizational communication and reduce redundant
initiatives between the various standards bodies. JTC 1 committees
focus on everything from office equipment to computer graphics. One of
the newest committees is devoted to biometrics.
ISO, ANSI, IEEE, and all the other standards bodies are well
established organizations with long histories and formidable
bureaucracies. The Internet on the other hand has long been skeptical
of such formalities and spawned a more ragtag, shoot from the hip
attitude about standard creation.[19] I will focus the rest of this
chapter on those communities and the protocol documents that they
produce.
���� There are four groups that make up the organizational hierarchy in
charge of Internet standardization. They are the Internet Society, the
Internet Architecture Board, the Internet Engineering Steering Group,
and the Internet Engineering Task Force.[20] �
���� The Internet Society (ISOC), founded in January 1992, is a
professional membership society. It is the umbrella organization for
the other three groups. Its mission is "[t]o assure the open
development, evolution and use of the Internet for the benefit of all
people throughout the world."[21] It facilitates the development of
Internet protocols and standards. ISOC also provides fiscal and legal
independence for the standards-making process, separating this activity
from its former US government patronage.
���� The Internet Architecture Board (IAB), originally called the
Internet Activities Board, is a core committee of thirteen nominated by
and consisting of members of the IETF.[22] The IAB reviews IESG
appointments, provides oversight of the architecture of network
protocols, oversees the standards creation process, hears appeals,
oversees the RFC Editor, and performs other chores. The IETF (as well
as the Internet Research Task Force which focuses on longer term
research topics) falls under the auspices of the IAB. The IAB is
primarily an oversight board, since actually accepted protocols
generally originate within the IETF (or in smaller design teams).
Underneath the IAB is the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG),
a committee of the Internet Society that assists and manages the
technical activities of the IETF. All of the directors of the various
research areas in the IETF are part of this Steering Group.
The bedrock of this entire community is The Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF). The IETF is the core area where most protocol initiatives
begin. Several thousand people are involved in the IETF, mostly through
email lists, but also in face to face meetings. �The Internet
Engineering Task Force is,� in their own words, �a loosely
self-organized group of people who make technical and other
contributions to the engineering and evolution of the Internet and its
technologies.�[23] Or elsewhere: �the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF) is an open global community of network designers, operators,
vendors, and researchers producing technical specifications for the
evolution of the Internet architecture and the smooth operation of the
Internet.�[24]
The IETF is best defined in the following RFCs:
�
������ �The Tao of IETF: A Guide for New Attendees of the Internet
Engineering Task Force� (RFC 1718, FYI 17)
������ �Defining the IETF� (RFC 3233, BCP 58)
������ �IETF Guidelines for Conduct�[25] (RFC 3184, BCP 54)
������ "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3" (RFC 2026, BCP 9)
������ "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process:
Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees" (RFC 2727, BCP 10)
������ "The Organizations Involved in the IETF Standards Process" (RFC
2028, BCP 11)
�
These documents describe both how the IEFT creates standards, but also
how the entire community itself is set up and how it behaves.
The IETF is the least bureaucratic of all the organizations mentioned
in this chapter. In fact it is not an organization at all, but rather
an informal community. It does not have strict bylaws or formal
officers.� It is not a corporation (nonprofit or otherwise) and thus
has no Board of Directors. It has no binding power as a standards
creation body and is not ratified by any treaty or charter. It has no
membership, and its meetings are open to anyone. �Membership� in the
IETF is simply evaluated through an individual�s participation. If you
participate via email, or attend meetings, you are a member of the
IETF. All participants operate as unaffiliated individuals, not as
representatives of other organizations or vendors.
The IETF is divided up by topic into various Working Groups. Each
Working Group[26] focuses on a particular issue or issues and drafts
documents that are meant to capture the consensus of the group. Like
the other standards bodies, IETF protocols are voluntary standards.
There is no technical or legal requirement[27] that anyone actually
adopt IETF protocols.
���� The process of establishing an Internet Standard is gradual,
deliberate, and negotiated. Any protocol produced by the IETF goes
through a series of stages, called the �standards track.� The standards
track exposes the document to extensive peer review, allowing it to
mature into an RFC memo and eventually an Internet Standard. �The
process of creating an Internet Standard is straightforward,� they
write. �A specification undergoes a period of development and several
iterations of review by the Internet community and revision based upon
experience, is adopted as a Standard by the appropriate body [...], and
is published.�[28]
Preliminary versions of specifications are solicited by the IETF as
Internet-Draft documents. Anyone may submit an Internet-Draft. They are
not standards in any way and should not be cited as such nor
implemented by any vendors. They are works in progress and are subject
to review and revision. If they are deemed uninteresting or
unnecessary, they simply disappear after their expiration date of six
months. They are not RFCs and receive no number.
If an Internet-Draft survives the necessary revisions and is deemed
important, it is shown to the IESG and nominated for the standards
track. If the IESG agrees (and the IAB approves), then the
specification is handed off to the RFC Editor and put in the queue for
future publication. The actual stages in the standards track are:
�
1)� Proposed Standard�The formal entry point for all specifications is
here as a Proposed Standard. This is the beginning of the RFC process.
The IESG has authority via the RFC Editor to elevate an Internet-Draft
to this level. While no prior real world implementation is required of
a Proposed Standard, these specifications are generally expected to be
fully-formulated and implementable.
2)� Draft Standard�After specifications have been implemented in at
least two �independent and interoperable� real world applications they
can be elevated to the level of a Draft Standard. A specification at
the Draft Standard level must be relatively stable and easy to
understand. While subtle revisions are normal for Draft Standards, no
substantive changes are expected after this level.
3)� Standard�Robust specifications with wide implementation and a
proven track record are elevated to the level of Standard. They are
considered to be official Internet Standards and are given a new number
in the �STD� sub-series of the RFCs (but also retain their RFC number).
The total number of Standards is relatively small.
�
Not all RFCs are standards. Many RFCs are informational, experimental,
historic, or even humorous[29] in nature. Furthermore not all RFCs are
full-fledged Standards�they may not be that far along yet.
In addition to the STD subseries for Internet Standards, there are two
other RFC subseries that warrant special attention: the Best Current
Practice Documents (BCP) and informational documents known as FYI.
Each new protocol specification is drafted in accordance with RFC
1111, �Request for Comments on Request for Comments: Instructions to
RFC Authors,� which specifies guidelines, text formatting and
otherwise, for drafting all RFCs. Likewise, FYI 1 (RFC 1150) titled
�F.Y.I. on F.Y.I.: Introduction to the F.Y.I. Notes� outlines general
formatting issues for the FYI series. Other such memos guide the
composition of Internet-Drafts, as well as STDs and other documents.
Useful information on drafting Internet standards is also found in RFCs
2223 and 2360.[30]
The standards track allows for a high level of due process. Openness,
transparency and fairness are all virtues of the standards track.
Extensive public discussion is par for the course.
�
Some of the RFCs are extremely important. RFCs 1122 and 1123 outline
all the standards that must be followed by any computer that wishes to
be connected to the Internet. Representing �the consensus of a large
body of technical experience and wisdom,�[31] these two documents
outline everything from email and transferring files to the basic
protocols like IP that actually move data from one place to another.
���� Other RFCs go into greater technical detail on a single
technology. Released in September 1981, RFC 791 and RFC 793 are the two
crucial documents in the creation of the Internet protocol suite TCP/IP
as we know it today. In the early �70s Robert Kahn of DARPA and Vinton
Cerf of Stanford University teamed up to create a new protocol for the
intercommunication of different computer networks. In September 1973
they presented their ideas at the University of Sussex in Brighton and
soon afterwards completed writing the paper �A Protocol for Packet
Network Intercommunication� which would be published in 1974 by the
IEEE. The RFC Editor Jon Postel and others assisted in the final
protocol design.[32] Eventually this new protocol was split in 1978
into a two-part system consisting of TCP and IP. (As mentioned in
earlier chapters TCP is a reliable protocol which is in charge of
establishing connections and making sure packets are delivered, while
IP is a connectionless protocol that is only interested in moving
packets from one place to another.)
���� One final technology worth mentioning in the context of protocol
creation is the World Wide Web. The Web emerged largely from the
efforts of one man, the British computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee.
During the process of developing the Web, Berners-Lee wrote both the
Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) and the Hypertext Markup Language
(HTML), which form the core suite of protocols used broadly today by
servers and browsers to transmit and display web pages. He also created
the web address, called a Universal Resource Identifier (URI), of which
today�s �URL� is a variant, which is a simple, direct way for locating
any resource on the Web.
���� Tim Berners-Lee:
�
The art was to define the few basic, common rules of �protocol� that
would allow one computer to talk to another, in such a way that when
all computer everywhere did it, the system would thrive, not break
down. For the Web, those elements were, in decreasing order of
importance, universal resource identifiers (URIs), the Hypertext
Transfer Protocol (HTTP), and the Hypertext Markup Language (HTML).
�
So, like other protocol designers, Berners-Lee�s philosophy was to
create a standard language for interoperation. By adopting his
language, the computers would be able to exchange files. He continues:
�
What was often difficult for people to understand about the design was
that there was nothing else beyond URIs, HTTP, and HTML. There was no
central computer �controlling� the Web, no single network on which
these protocols worked, not even an organization anywhere that �ran�
the Web. The Web was not a physical �thing� that existed in a certain
�place.� It was a �space� in which information could exist.[33]
�
This is also in line with other protocol scientists�s intentions�that
an info-scape exists on the net with no centralized administration or
control. (But as I have pointed out, it should not be inferred that a
lack of centralized control means a lack of control as such.)
Berners-Lee eventually took his ideas to the IETF and published
�Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW� (RFC 1630) in 1994. This memo
describes the correct technique for creating and decoding URIs for use
on the Web. But, Berners-Lee admitted, �the IETF route didn�t seem to
be working.�[34]
Instead he established a separate standards group in October 1994
called the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). �I wanted the consortium to
run on an open process like the IETF�s,� Berners-Lee remembers, �but
one that was quicker and more efficient. [...] Like the IETF, W3C would
develop open technical specifications. Unlike the IETF, W3C would have
a small full-time staff to help design and develop the code where
necessary. Like industry consortia, W3C would represent the power and
authority of millions of developers, researchers and users. And like
its member research institutions, it would leverage the most recent
advances in information technology.�[35]
The W3C creates the specifications for Web technologies, and releases
�recommendations� and other technical reports. The design philosophies
driving the W3C are similar to those at the IETF and other standards
bodies. They promote a distributed (their word is �decentralized�)
architecture, they promote interoperability in and among different
protocols and different end systems, and so on.
In many ways the core protocols of the Internet had their development
heyday in the �80s. But Web protocols are experiencing explosive growth
today.
The growth is due to an evolution of the concept of the Web into what
Berners-Lee calls the Semantic Web. In the Semantic Web, information is
not simply interconnected on the Internet using links and graphical
markup�what he calls �a space in which information could permanently
exist and be referred to�[36]--but it is enriched using descriptive
protocols that say what the information actually is.
For example, the word �Galloway� is meaningless to a machine. It is
just a piece of information that says nothing about what it is or what
it means. But wrapped inside a descriptive protocol it can be
effectively parsed: �<surname>Galloway</surname>.� Now the machine
knows that Galloway is a surname. The word has been enriched with
semantic value. If one makes the descriptive protocols more complex,
then one is able to say more complex things about information, i.e.
that Galloway is my surname, and my given name is Alexander, and so on.
The Semantic Web is simply the process of adding extra meta-layers on
top of information so that it can be parsed according to its semantic
value.
���� Why is this significant? Before this, protocol had very little to
do with meaningful information. Protocol does not interface with
content, with semantic value. It is, as I say above, against
interpretation. But with Berners-Lee comes a new strain of protocol:
protocol that cares about meaning. This is what he means by a Semantic
Web. It is, as he says, �machine-understandable information.�
���� Does the Semantic Web, then, contradict my principle above that
protocol is against interpretation? I�m not so sure. Protocols can
certainly say things about their contents. A checksum does this. A
file-size variable does this. But do they actually know the meaning of
their contents? So it is a matter of debate as to whether descriptive
protocols actually add intelligence to information, or if they are
simply subjective descriptions (originally written by a human) that
computers mimic but understand little about. Berners-Lee himself
stresses that the Semantic Web is not an artificial intelligence
machine.[37] He calls it �well-defined� data, not interpreted data�and
in reality those are two very different things. I promised in the
Introduction to skip all epistemological questions, and will leave this
one to be debated by my betters.
As this survey of protocological institutionalization shows, the
primary source materials for any protocological analysis of Internet
standards are the Request for Comments (RFC) memos. They began
circulation in 1969 with Steve Crocker�s RFC �Host Software� and have
documented all developments in protocol since.[38] �It was a modest and
entirely forgettable memo,� Crocker remembers, �but it has significance
because it was part of a broad initiative whose impact is still with us
today.�[39]
While generally opposed to the center-periphery model of
communication�what some call the �downstream paradigm�[40]�Internet
protocols describe all manner of computer-mediated communication over
networks. There are RFCs for transporting messages from one place to
another, and others for making sure it gets there in one piece. There
are RFCs for email, for webpages, for news wires, and for graphic
design.
Some advertise distributed architectures (like IP routing), some
hierarchical (like the DNS). Yet they all create the conditions for
technological innovation based on a goal of standardization and
organization. It is a peculiar type of anti-federalism through
universalism�strange as it sounds�whereby universal techniques are
levied in such a way as ultimately to revert much decision-making back
to the local level.
But during this process many local differences are elided in favor of
universal consistencies. For example, protocols like HTML were
specifically designed to allow for radical deviation in screen
resolution, browser type and so on. And HTML (along with protocol as a
whole) acts as a strict standardizing mechanism that homogenizes these
deviations under the umbrella of a unilateral standard.
Ironically, then, the Internet protocols which help engender a
distributed system of organization are themselves underpinned by
adistributed, bureaucratic institutions�be they entities like ICANN or
technologies like DNS.
Thus it is an oversight for theorists like Lawrence Lessig, despite
his strengths, to suggest that the origin of Internet communication was
one of total freedom and lack of control.[41] Instead, it is clear to
me that the exact opposite of freedom, that is control, has been the
outcome of the last forty years of developments in networked
communications. The founding principle of the net is control, not
freedom. Control has existed from the beginning.
Perhaps it is a different type of control then we are used to seeing.
It is a type of control based in openness, inclusion, universalism, and
flexibility. It is control borne from high degrees of technical
organization (protocol), not this or that limitation on individual
freedom or decision making (fascism).
Thus it is with complete sincerity that Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee
writes:
�
I had (and still have) a dream that the web could be less of a
television channel and more of an interactive sea of shared knowledge.
I imagine it immersing us as a warm, friendly environment made of the
things we and our friends have seen, heard, believe or have figured
out.[42]
�
The irony is, of course, that in order to achieve this social utopia
computer scientists like Berners-Lee had to develop the most highly
controlled and extensive mass media yet known. Protocol gives us the
ability to build a �warm, friendly� technological space. But it becomes
warm and friendly through technical standardization, agreement,
organized implementation, broad (sometimes universal) adoption, and
directed participation.
���� I stated in the introduction that protocol is based on a
contradiction between two opposing machines, one machine that radically
distributes control into autonomous locales, and another that focuses
control into rigidly defined hierarchies. This chapter illustrates this
reality in full detail. The generative contradiction that lies at the
very heart of protocol is that in order to be politically progressive,
protocol must be partially reactionary.
To put it another way, in order for protocol to enable radically
distributed communications between autonomous entities, it must employ
a strategy of universalization, and of homogeneity. It must be
anti-diversity. It must promote standardization in order to enable
openness. It must organize peer groups into bureaucracies like the IEFT
in order to create free technologies.
To be sure, the two partners in this delicate two-step often exist in
separate arenas. As protocol pioneer Bob Braden puts it, �There are
several vital kinds of heterogeneity.�[43] That is to say, one sector
can be standardized while another is heterogeneous. The core Internet
protocols can be highly controlled while the actual administration of
the net can be highly uncontrolled. Or, DNS can be arranged in a strict
hierarchy while users�s actual experience of the net can be highly
distributed.
In short, control in distributed networks is not monolithic. It
proceeds in multiple, parallel, contradictory and oftenunpredictable
ways. It is a complex of interrelated currents and counter-currents.
Perhaps I can term the institutional frameworks mentioned in this
chapter a type of tactical standardization, in which certain short term
goals are necessary in order to realize one�s longer term goals.
Standardization is the politically reactionary tactic that enables
radical openness. Or to give an example of this analogy in technical
terms: the Domain Name System, with it�s hierarchical architecture and
bureaucratic governance, is the politically reactionary tactic that
enables the truly distributed and open architecture of the Internet
Protocol. It is, as Barthes put it, our �Operation Margarine.� And this
is the generative contradiction that fuels the net.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Jake Feinler, �30 Years of RFCs,� RFC 2555, April 7, 1999.
[2] See Vint Cerf�s memorial to Jon Postel�s life and work in �I
Remember IANA,� RFC 2468, October 1988.
[3] Katie Hafner and Matthew Lyon, Where Wizards Stay up Late: The
Origins of the Internet (New York: Touchstone, 1996), p. 145. For
biographies of two dozen protocol pioneers see Gary Malkin�s �Who�s Who
in the Internet: Biographies of IAB, IESG and IRSG Members,� RFC 1336,
FYI 9, May 1992.
[4] Vinton Cerf, personal correspondence, September 23, 2002.
[5] Fred Baker, personal correspondence,� December 12, 2002.
[6] AT&T�s Otis Wilson who is cited in Peter Salus, A Quarter Century
of Unix (New York: Addison-Wesley, 1994), p. 59.
[7] Salus, A Quarter Century of Unix, p. 2.
[8] See Dennis Ritchie, �The Development of the C Programming Language�
in Thomas Bergin and Richard Gibson, eds., History of Programming
Languages II (New York: ACM, 1996), p. 681.
[9] Bjarne Stroustrup, �Transcript of Presentation� in Bergin & Gibson,
p. 761.
[10] S. J. Liebowitz and Stephen E. Margolis, �Path Dependence, Lock-In
and History,� Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, April 1995.
[11] If not VHS then the VCR in general was aided greatly by the porn
industry. David Morton writes that �many industry analysts credited the
sales of erotic video tapes as one of the chief factors in the VCR�s
early success. They took the place of adult movie theaters, but also
could be purchased in areas where they were legal and viewed at home.�
See Morton�s A History of Electronic Entertainment since 1945,
http://www.ieee.org/organizations/history_center/research_guides/
entertainment, p. 56.
[12] Douglas Puffert, �Path Dependence in Economic Theory,�
http://www.vwl.uni-muenchen.de/ls_komlos/pathe.pdf, p. 5.
[13] IEEE 2000 Annual Report (IEEE, 2000), p. 2.
[14] IEEE prefers to avoid associating their standards with
trademarked, commercial, or otherwise proprietary technologies. Hence
the IEEE definition eschews the word �Ethernet� which is associated
with Xerox PARC where it was named. The 1985 IEEE standard for Ethernet
is instead titled �IEEE 802.3 Carrier Sense Multiple Access with
Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) Access Method and Physical Layer
Specifications.�
[15] Paul Baran, Electrical Engineer, an oral history conducted in 1999
by David Hochfelder, IEEE History Center, Rutgers University, New
Brunswick, NJ, USA.
[16] ANSI, �National Standards Strategy for the United States,�
http://www.ansi.org, emphasis in original.
[17] The name ISO is in fact not an acronym, but derives from a Greek
word for �equal.� This way it avoids the problem of translating the
organization�s name into different languages, which would produce
different acronyms. The name ISO, then, is a type of semantic standard
in itself.
[18] See http://www.iso.ch for more history of the ISO.
[19] The IEFT takes pride in having such an ethos. Jeanette Hofmann
writes: �The IETF has traditionally understood itself as an elite in
the technical development of communication networks. Gestures of
superiority and a dim view of other standardisation committees are
matched by unmistakable impatience with incompetence in their own
ranks.� See �Government Technologies and Techniques of Government:
Politics on the Net,� http://duplox.wz-berlin.de/final/jeanette.htm
[20] Another important organization to mention is the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). ICANN is a
nonprofit organization which has control over the Internet�s domain
name system. Its Board of Directors has included Vinton Cerf,
co-inventor of the Internet Protocol and founder of the Internet
Society, and author Esther Dyson. �It is ICANN�s objective to operate
as an open, transparent, and consensus-based body that is broadly
representative of the diverse stakeholder communities of the global
Internet� (see �ICANN Fact Sheet,� http://www.icann.org). Despite this
rosy mission statement, ICANN has been the target of intense criticism
in recent years. It is for many the central lightning rod for problems
around issues of Internet governance. A close look at ICANN is
unfortunately outside the scope of this book, but for an excellent
examination of the organization see Milton Mueller�s Ruling the Root
(Cambride: MIT, 2002).
[21] http://www.isoc.org.
[22] For a detailed description of the IAB see Brian Carpenter,
�Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB),� RFC 2850, BCP 39,
May 2000.
[23] Gary Malkin, �The Tao of IETF: A Guide for New Attendees of the
Internet Engineering Task Force,� RFC 1718, FYI 17, October 1993.
[24] Paul Hoffman and Scott Bradner, �Defining the IETF,� RFC 3233, BCP
58, February 2002.
[25] This RFC is an interesting one because of the social relations it
endorses within the IETF. Liberal, democratic values are the norm.
�Intimidation or ad hominem attack� is to be avoided in IETF debates.�
Instead IETFers are encouraged to �think globally� and treat their
fellow colleagues �with respect as persons.� Somewhat ironically this
document also specifies that �English is the de facto language of the
IETF.� See Susan Harris, �IETF Guidelines for Conduct,� RFC 3184, BCP
54, October 2001.
[26] For more information on IETF Working Groups see Scott Bradner,
�IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures,� RFC 2418, BCP 25,
September 1998.
[27] That said, there are protocols that are given the status level of
�required� for certain contexts. For example the Internet Protocol is a
required protocol for anyone wishing to connect to the Internet. Other
protocols may be give status levels of �recommended� or �elective�
depending on how necessary they are for implementing a specific
technology. The �required� status level should not be confused however
with mandatory standards. These have legal implications and are
enforced by regulatory agencies.
[28] Scott Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3," RFC
2026, BCP 9, October 1996.
[29] Most RFCs published on April 1st are suspect. Take for example RFC
1149, "A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian
Carriers� (David Waitzman, April 1990), which describes how to send IP
datagrams via carrier pigeon, lauding their �intrinsic collision
avoidance system.� Thanks to Jonah Brucker-Cohen for first bringing
this RFC to my attention. Brucker-Cohen� himself has devised a new
protocol called �H2O/IP� for the transmission of IP datagrams using
modulated streams of water. Consider also �The Infinite Monkey Protocol
Suite (IMPS)� described in RFC 2795 (SteQven [sic] Christey, April
2000) that describes �a protocol suite which supports an infinite
number of monkeys that sit at an infinite number of typewriters in
order to determine when they have either produced the entire works of
William Shakespeare or a good television show.� Shakespeare would
probably appreciate �SONET to Sonnet Translation� (April 1994, RFC
1605) which uses fourteen line decasyllabic verse to optimize data
transmission over Synchronous Optical Network (SONET). There is also
the self-explanatory �Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol
(HTCPCP/1.0)� (Larry Masinter, RFC 2324, April 1998), clearly required
reading for any under-slept webmaster. Other examples of ridiculous
technical standards include Eryk Salvaggio�s �Slowest Modem� which uses
the US Postal Service to send data via diskette at a data transfer rate
of only 0.002438095238095238095238 kb/s. He specifies that �[a]ll html
links on the diskette must be set up as a href=�mailing address� (where
�mailing address� is, in fact, a mailing address)� (�Free Art Games #5,
6 and 7,� Rhizome, September 26, 2000), and Cory Arcangel�s �Total
Asshole� file compression system that, in fact, enlarges a file
exponentially in size when it is compressed.
[30] See Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds, "Instructions to RFC Authors,"
RFC 2223, October 1997, and Gregor Scott, �Guide for Internet Standards
Writers,� RFC 2360, BCP 22, June 1998.
[31] Robert Braden, �Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Communication
Layers,� RFC 1122, STD 3, October 1989.
[32] Milton Mueller, Ruling the Root (Cambridge: MIT, 2002), p. 76.
[33] Tim Berners-Lee, Weaving the Web (New York: HarperCollins, 1999),
p. 36.
[34] Ibid., p. 71.
[35] Ibid., pp. 92, 94.
[36] Ibid., p. 18.
[37] Tim Berners-Lee, �What the Semantic Web can represent,�
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/RDFnot.html.
[38] One should not tie Crocker�s memo to the beginning of protocol per
se. That honor should probably go to Paul Baran�s 1964 RAND publication
�On Distributed Communications.� In many ways it serves as the origin
text for the RFCs that would follow. Although it came before the RFCs
and was not connected to it in any way, Baran�s memo essentially
fulfilled the same function, that is, to outline for Baran�s peers a
broad technological standard for digital communication over networks.
����� Other RFC-like documents have also been important in the
technical development of networking. The Internet Experiment Notes
(IENs), published from 1977 to 1982 and edited by RFC editor Jon
Postel, addressed issues connected to the then-fledgling Internet
before merging with the RFC series. Vint Cerf also cites the ARPA
Satellite System Notes and the PRNET Notes on packet radio (see RFC
2555). There exists also the MIL-STD series maintained by the
Department of Defense. Some of the MIL-STDs overlap with Internet
Standards covered in the RFC series.
[39] Steve Crocker, �30 Years of RFCs,� RFC 2555, April 7, 1999.
[40] See Nelson Minar and Marc Hedlund, �A Network of Peers:
Peer-to-Peer Models Through the History of the Internet,� in Andy Oram,
Ed., Peer-to-Peer: Harnessing the Power of Disruptive Technologies
(Sebastopol, CA: O�Reilly, 2001), p. 10.
[41] In his first book, Code and other Laws of Cyberspace (New York:
Basic Books, 1999), Lessig sets up a before/after scenario for
cyberspace. The �before� refers to what he calls the �promise of
freedom� (6). The �after� is more ominous. Although as yet unfixed,
this future is threatened by �an architecture that perfects control�
(6). He continues this before/after narrative in The Future of Ideas:
The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World (New York: Random House,
2001) where he assumes that the network, in its nascent form, was what
he calls free, that is, characterized by �an inability to control�
(147). Yet �[t]his architecture is now changing� (239), Lessig claims.
We are about to �embrace an architecture of control� (268) put in place
by new commercial and legal concerns.
Lessig�s discourse is always about a process of becoming, not of
always having been. It is certainly correct for him to note that new
capitalistic and juridical mandates are sculpting network
communications in ugly new ways. But what is lacking from Lessig�s
work, then, is the recognition that control is endemic to all
distributed networks that are governed by protocol. Control was there
from day one. It was not imported later by the corporations and courts.
In fact distributed networks must establish a system of control, which
I call protocol, in order to function properly. In this sense, computer
networks are and always have been the exact opposite of Lessig�s
�inability to control.��
While Lessig and I clearly come to very different conclusions, I
attribute this largely to the fact that we have different objects of
study. His are largely issues of governance and commerce while mine are
technical and formal issues. My criticism of Lessig is less to deride
his contribution, which is inspiring, than to point out our different
approaches.
[42] Cited in Jeremie Miller, �Jabber,� in Oram, Ed., Peer-to-Peer, p.
81.
[43] Bob Braden, personal correspondence, December 25, 2002.
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
