Vernon Schryver wrote:
I prefer the definitions of various kinds of "Internet service" in
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-02.txt
It confuses "Internet service" and "IP service" and calls
even a NAT provider ISP.
In each case, the terminology refers to the intent of the
provider (ISP)
It is not an acceptable definition.
The definitions proposed here are clearly of little value if service
providers and vendors are not willing to adopt them. Consequently,
the terms proposed are intended to not be pejorative,
The draft attempts to authorize NAT providers call themselves ISP.
Then, the NAT providers are willing to adopt it and just call
themselves not "web providers" but ISPs. So, the draft is
useless.
The only meaningful thing for IETF to do is define what is "ISP"
as a terminology within IETF.
There are a lot of IETF standard track documents of little value
ignored by service providers and vendors. So, don't bother.
Masataka Ohta
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf