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-terms-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.
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.
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.
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.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com