On 3/4/11 4:11 PM, John Levine wrote:
Fees may result as nominal charges related to authentication methods.
Such authentication might be needed to support ...
Something like that is hypothetically possible, but we're documenting
existing practice. If anyone is aware of a BL that people actually
use that's using authentication so complex that they have to charge
for it, let us know.
The BCP makes blanket statements that clearly overreach, as it logically
fails in its justification. Nominal charges by third-parties as part of
some type of authentication do not represent a CONFLICT OF INTEREST, as
implied by the overreaching section making these requirements. It seems
unlikely ISP support desks would be receptive to such restrictions. For
example, tunneling services requests may impose such requirements. When
a service is flooded with spoofed requests, it is not unreasonable to
require at least non-free email accounts or SMS messages as a method to
elevate requests. The way this section has been written, such methods
would be excluded without any valid justification. Again, these methods
do not represent a CONFLICT OF INTEREST nor represent unreasonable or
unused practices.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg