Ohta-san,
I do not expect that we will agree on this, and may need to
simply agree to disagree, but, having just reviewed the draft
you included in your slightly earlier not, let me try to explain
the other point of view, and why the I-D to which Vernon refers
is written the way it is and, in the process, I hope, respond to
some of Hadmut's concerns...
The IETF has absolutely not ability to insist that an provider
of IP services, or various good or bad or terrible
approximations to IP servers, do or not do anything. If we were
to establish a document that said, e.g., "you are not an ISP,
and must not call yourself an ISP, unless you conform to the
following rules", I would expect the low-service providers to
simply ignore us. That helps no one.
Instead, I think there are only two courses of action that have
a chance of making progress on this issue. And I think they are
complementary, rather than competing, actions.
First, Hadmut, and others with his concerns in other countries,
probably need to approach the local regulatory authorities who
are concerned about consumer fraud and say "the range of things
that people are selling under the name 'Internet service'
includes too broad a range. People are confused, and suppliers
are insisting that people make long-term commitments to
particular providers with any real idea what they are getting,
and that is poor public policy and you should do something about
it".
Second, the IETF should consider standardizing (or making a BCP
out of) some terminology similar to that in the I-D. The intent
of that document is to lay a foundation for encouraging service
providers to explain what they are offering in language that
people can understand and, if the local/national regulators
think it appropriate, telling service providers what they need
to disclose and in what terms.
Whether we like it or not, there are users (of what those users
think of as "the Internet") who would be perfectly happy with a
web-only, all outbound protocols but HTTP and HTTPS blocked, all
inbound ports blocked except responses to the above, private
address space, and all connections dropped and a new address
assigned every half-hour "service"... as long as it is cheap
enough. I wouldn't want such a "service", I gather Vernon
wouldn't, and you probably wouldn't want it either. But I don't
see a problem with those who want it getting it, as long as no
one is deceiving them (or anything else) about what they are
getting.
And it is precisely the "no lying about why you are selling"
aspect of this that the I-D is addressed to, not an (almost
certainly useless) attempt to proscribe particular services or
terminology.
regards,
john
--On Sunday, 20 June, 2004 07:44 +0900 Masataka Ohta
<mohta(_at_)necom830(_dot_)hpcl(_dot_)titech(_dot_)ac(_dot_)jp> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf