Jon;
>>Any comments on the content of the draft?
I would go further - first to define by exclusion, secondly to define
a new class of providers (according tro common uisage) so that
discussion can proceed
My intention is to provide a semi permanent definition as an Informational
RFC.
It is important to make the definition protected by bogus opinions
of various bodies including IETF.
An ISP _hosts_ its own and customer's hosts. Hosts follow the
hosts requirements RFC, at least.
An ISP uses routers to interconnect its, its customers, and other to ISPs
networks, Routers follow the router requirements RFC, at least.
They are requirements by IETF.
Worse, even in IETF, there is no Internet Standard of router requirements
yet and the newest revision to the Proposed Standard is BCP.
So, please don't attempt to rely on it.
Service Organisations that don't allow a host or router that follows the above
definition to excercise capabilities defined are what we now know as
Content Service Providers, and must provide application level gateways,
Application Service Providers, and offer portals or ALGs. In each case there
may be good performance or security reasons for this mode of service, but
there will usually be lack of flexibility or ease of introdution to new
services, content and applications in general.
I think my draft covers the case to make such network providers
not ISPs.
personal comment
Other classes of organisation may simply be providing a subset of
internet services - I don't see a market or technical case for these
and in fact would encourage regulatory bodies to see if these types of
organisations are trying to achieve lock out or are engaged in
other types of monopolistic or anti-competitive behaviour. :-)
I just want to make it illegal for these types of organisations call
their service "Internet" or "internet".
It's something like "Olympic".
Masataka Ohta