Internet Evolution, Governance
and the Digital Object
Architecture
Workshop on SCORM
Sequencing and Navigation
Gaithersburg, Maryland
February 23, 2005
Robert E. Kahn
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
Reston, Virginia
Three Initial Networks




About 30 – 35 years ago, DARPA funded the
creation of three seminal packet networks –
ARPANET, Packet Radio, Packet Satellite
The Internet came about from a desire to link
the three of them
Ethernet occurred in parallel, led by Xerox Parc
researchers, and other network types followed
The resulting architecture was independent of
the number and type of networks or who ran
them.
Key Decisions




The Internet would be a global information system
An open-architecture would be used to combine
different networks based on open and well-known
interfaces, protocols & objects.
A new communications-oriented host protocol
(TCP/IP) would be created to replace the original
ARPANET host protocol (NCP)
The concept of global addressing and IP addresses
would be introduced to identify individual machines
anywhere on the global Internet
Comments on the Key Decisions





The architecture is robust in the presence of
many different network types and many outages
Gateways provided IP routing and Network
“Impedance Matching”
TCP accommodated end-end protocols
 different packet sizes, duplicates, error
detection, losses due to tunnels, mountains,
jamming, etc.
Separate network administrations were
permitted, which allowed the Net to grow
DNS not technically critical, but helped users
Understanding the Big Picture



Many things were done well from the outset; with
20/20 hindsight, some could have been done better
The context was critical
 Mostly mainframes, few time-sharing systems
 No PCs, workstations, LANs
 One dominant carrier in the US
 Government facility initially
What is important at the time may be only apparent
with hindsight; but also what seems important at the
time may not turn out to be so important later on
Key Management Structures
Internet Configuration Control Board (ICCB)
 Internet Activities Board (IAB)
 Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
 Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
 Internet Society (ISOC)
 Domain Name System (DNS)
 Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers (ICANN)

Defining the Internet

Logical architecture for internetworking

Independent of the underlying networks
Open architecture at the network level
 Not the routers, switches, lines, computers
 Not any one service provider on the net
 Reference to the FNC definition from 1995


www.hpcc.gov/fnc/Internet_res.html
Updating the “1995 Definition”
"Internet" refers to the global information system that -(i) is logically linked together by a globally unique
address space based on the Internet Protocol (IP) or its
subsequent extensions/follow-ons;
(ii) is able to support communications using the
Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP)
suite or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons, and/or
other IP-compatible protocols; and
(iii) provides, uses or makes accessible, either publicly or
privately, high level services layered on or integrated
with the communications and related infrastructure
described herein.
Social and Political Dimensions

Most Nation’s had committed to ISO protocols





Yet TCP/IP won out in the final analysis
Many reasons why; critical mass, many organizations
helped, no significant benefit to changing, etc.
Formation of ICCB, IAB, IETF, etc enabled the
net to evolve
NSF strategy of fostering independent networks
- expanded participation without central control
Boucher Bill allowed commercialization
The World Embraces the Internet
Who is in Charge of the Internet?
 Who is in Charge of the World Economy?
 World Summit in Geneva – December, 2003
 And a host of follow-activities:

ITU Workshop – February, 2004
 UN ICT Task Force Global Forum – March, 2004
 Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG)
 Phase II of the World Summit in Tunis – Nov. ’05

Infrastructure Development

What is so hard about it?



Getting Buy in




Making it scalable over platforms, size and time
Achieving Critical Mass
Pleasing many essential participants
Displacing prior capabilities
Structuring matters to deal with concerns about empire
building
It’s a lot easier to create brand new capabilities
than to affect existing means of operation
Infrastructure Creation is a
Subtractive Process
Infrastructure reduces a common, shared
capability to its basic and essential attributes
 These attributes are not always recognized
or understood up front
 Upon further scrutiny, capabilities are usually
deleted from a well-conceived architecture
over time
 Consensus develops when no more can be
removed without disabling the infrastructure

What is the Problem?




Managing information in the Net over very long
periods of time – e.g. centuries or more
Dealing with very large amounts of information in
the Net over time
When information, its location(s) and even the
underlying systems may change dramatically
over time
Respecting and protecting rights, interests and
value
A Meta-level Architecture
Allows for arbitrary types of information
systems
 Allows for dynamic formatting and data
typing
 Can accommodate interoperability
between multiple different information
systems
 Allows metadata schema to be identified
and typed

Digital Object Architecture:
Motivation

To reformulate the Internet architecture around the
notion of uniquely identifiable data structures

Enabling existing and new types of information to be
reliably managed and accessed in the Internet
environment over long periods of time

Providing mechanisms to stimulate innovation, the
creation of dynamic new forms of expression and to
manifest older forms

While supporting intellectual property protection, finegrained access control, and enable well-formed
business practices to emerge
Digital Object Architecture

Technical Components

Digital Objects (DOs)




Resolution of Unique Identifiers



Maps an identifier into “state information” about the DO
Handle System is a general purpose resolution system
Repositories from which DOs may be accessed


Structured data, independent of the platform on which it was
created
Consisting of “elements” of the form <type,value>
One of which is its unique, persistent identifier
And into which they may be deposited
Metadata Registries



Repositories that contain general information about DOs
Supports multiple metadata schemes
Can map queries into unique DO specifications (via handles)
What is a Digital Object


Defined data structure, machine independent
Consisting of a set of elements



Identifiers are known as “Handles”





Each of the form <type,value>
One of which is the unique identifier
Format is “prefix/suffix”
Prefix is unique to a naming authority
Suffix can be any string of bits assigned by that authority
Data structure can be parsed; types can be resolved
within the architecture
Associated properties record and transaction record
containing metadata and usage information
Interoperability & Federated
Repositories
Create a cohesive interoperable collection
of repository-based systems



Initially, perhaps, around a core set of
projects, content, applications and/or
organizations as in ADL
Demonstrate interoperability between
different repository collections
Develop procedures to insure continued
accessibility to key archival information
Repository Notion
Logical External Interface
RAP
Repository
Access Protocol
Any Hardware & Software
Configuration
Repositories & Digital Objects
Each Digital
Object has its
own unique &
persistent ID
Content Providers
want to assign Ids
IPv6
Objects may be
Replicated in
Multiple Repositories
REPOSITORY
Could be upwards
of trillions of DOs
per Repository
Handle System

Distributed Identifier Service on the Internet

First General Purpose Resolution system

Can be used to locate repositories that contain digital objects
given their handles - and more!

Other indirect references
 Public Keys, Authentication information for Dos

Accommodates interoperability between many different information
systems; for example


DNS was demonstrated on the Handle System in preparation for Y2K
Can support ENUM, RFID, and more
Attributes of the Handle System
The basic Architecture of the Handle
System is flat, scaleable, and extensible
 Logically central, but physically
decentralized
 Supports Local Handle Services, if desired
 Handle resolutions return entire “Handle
Records” or portions thereof
 Handle Records are also

digital objects
 signed by the servers
 doubly certificated by the system

Resolution Mechanism
Handle
Handle
Record
Multiple Sites
Multiple Servers
Handle System
<www.handle.net>
•
•
•
•
System is non –nodal
Scaleable & Distributed
Supports global (and local) resolution
With backup for reliability, mirroring for efficiency
Managing Rights & Interests





Not just about copyright
Terms and Conditions (T&Cs) for use may be
contained within each DO; also information
about intrinsic value, such as monetary value
T&Cs are intended to indicate clearly what one
can and/or cannot do with a given DO, where
such clarity is intended by the owner of the DO
Not an enforcement means, although it may be
used by an enforcement system
Mobile programs that are Digital Objects may
apply such terms to themselves and to any
digital objects they contain
Handle Format
2304.40/1234
Prefix
Authority
Item ID
(any format)
Prefix
Suffix
In use, a Handle is an opaque string.
Other examples of
Handles
2304/general info
2304/1
2304. HQ/staff
2304.1/memo123
2304.22.Pub/2004
Direct Access and Proxies
Direct
Access
Indirect
Access
One or more
Proxy Servers
Redirection of Handle Requests
General Registry of all
Naming Authorities
Direct
Access
Redirection
Information
One or more
Local Handle
Services
Conclusions






Managing Digital Objects for long-term access is a
key challenge
Initial Technology Components are available;
Industry is expected to generate more over time
Third-party value-added providers in the private
sector will ultimately shape the long-term evolution
Interoperability and reliable information access is a
critical objective
A diversity of applications (with user-friendly
interfaces) need to be developed & deployed
The ADL Project can have a central role to play in
demonstrating the technology and using it effectively