Re: Categorization of TCP/IP service provision types (was: Re: The right

--On Friday, 19 March, 2004 18:34 -0700 Vernon Schryver 
<vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com> wrote:
> > From: John C Klensin
> > Last week's version of the spam discussions, led to an
> > interesting (to me) side-discussion about what was, and was
> > not,  an "Internet connection" service.  ...
> > draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-00.txt.
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-ip-service-t
> erms-00.txt
>
> > This clearly isn't finished, indeed, it is not much more than
> > a  skeleton with a few examples.  It needs more work,
> > probably  additional categories, and more clarity about the
> > categories  that are there.
> I think it is about as clear as it should be.  Much more
> clearity would require sample contracts or risk getting bogged
> down in nitpicking on whether it is practical to run an SMTP
> server on a dynamic IP address, whether an IP address that
> changes once a year is really dynamic, and so forth.
Those are the places where I clearly don't think we should go. 
To do so rapidly gets us, I think, to a function matrix.   That 
would be conceptually useful, but would not be extremely 
unlikely to be adopted by vendors and hence would not help at 
all with the "promote truth in advertising" theme that started 
the attempt.
> What I see missing are hints why "dynamic addresses" are widely
> blacklisted.  There need to be words about the first three
> classes usually being priced so low that providers cannot
> afford to keep records of who was using a given address when
> it was used to send spam, denial of service attacks, or other
> naughtiness, or cannot afford to have abuse department to
> consult any records there might be.
Text would be welcome, but it seems to me that this addresses a 
different theme.  One could say that quality of customer service 
usually improves with categories, but that isn't universally 
true until one starts making categories of customer service 
efforts.  From my experience, I would even question your 
description above, although we don't disagree about the 
consequences: my impression is that a number of the "broadband" 
operators offering low-end services actually have fairly good 
logs.  What they don't have are abuse departments with the will 
and resources to dig through those logs and identify specific 
offenders.  Hand that same provider a subpoena associated with, 
e.g., some clearly criminal behavior, and records seem to turn 
up in a lot of cases.
What I've done in response to several comments is to add text to 
the beginning of the terminology section that tries to make it 
clear that these definitions are about what the provider intends 
to offer.  Whether the restrictions are imposed by AUP (or 
contractual terms and conditions) and whether technical means to 
enforce particular restrictions are effective on a particular 
day seems less important.
The "dynamic address" issue is, from that point of view, just a 
"technical means" to enforce (or just consistent with) an AUP or 
Ts and Cs.  I.e., if one believes that blacklisting dynamic 
addresses is rational, then part of the reason for that isn't 
"too cheap" or the addresses themselves, it is that these 
dynamic addresses tend to show up only in "server prohibited" 
environments.   Maybe it is equally rational to blacklist an 
address range on the theory that anything coming from that range 
is in violation of provider conditions of service and that one 
bad deed (violating AUPs or Ts and Cs) is as bad as another 
(demonstrated spamming).   But I don't see a reasonable way to 
incorporate any of that reasoning (whether one agrees with it or 
not) into the document without generally weakening it.  If you 
do, please suggest text.
> >                  If there is real interest in the subject,
> >                  I'd
> > like to see someone else take over the writing and editing.
> > If  there isn't any real, perhaps we can stop spending time
> > discussing the subject.
> The subject is not going to do away as long as people think
> they have a fundamental human right to do the equivalent of
> moving to a cardboard box under a bridge and then demanding
> banks and creditcard companies to see them as creditworthy as
> their bourgeois neighbors.
Of course, that belief is not limited to the Internet... for 
better or worse.
> If no one else will take the job and if there is any hope of
> getting it past the IESG, I'll happily be your editor,
> elaborator, or whatever.  My strengths don't include writing
> intelligible English, but it needs doing.
Thanks.  I've started a discussion with some selected ADs about 
what they want to do with this, if anything.  My intent is to 
wait to see what they have to say.  If they aren't interested, 
and interested in moving toward BCP, then the effort is, as far 
as I'm concerned, dead.  If they want a WG, then the next real 
task is "charter".  Otherwise... well, let's how they want to 
proceed.
And, as far as I can tell, you do intelligible English very well.

   john