From: Masataka Ohta
<mohta(_at_)necom830(_dot_)hpcl(_dot_)titech(_dot_)ac(_dot_)jp>
As you introduce "Web connectivity", such people (including
mobile operators in Japan) claim that they are ISPs, because
they are offering web connectivity over X.25 without IP.
WebTV is functionally the same as web connectivity over X.25 without
IP. Most of the world thinks that part of Microsoft is an "ISP."
Nothing the IETF or even governments could do would change that.
That
is, "The definitions proposed here are clearly of little value
if service providers and vendors are not willing to adopt them."
Those involved call the services of WebTV either "WebTV" or "Internet
service." Professionals (including salespeople) who are not employed
by Microsoft in the WebTV operation, especially competitors, would be
happy to call it "Web Connectivity" instead of "WebTV." Even Microsoft
might like "Web Connectivity" to limit dilution of its "WebTV" trademark.
Thus such concerns are irrelevant to "Web Connectivity."
You'd do better attacking one of the other categories.
A major mistake is that you are forcing people within IETF
use your terminology even though you are fully aware that
"some members of the IETF community that some of these
connectively models are simply "broken" or "not really an
Internet service"".
No, the major mistake is thinking the various classes of IP service
do not exist or that you can keep people from naming them with short
English words or phrases. As the various classes become more popular
and widely recognized, the world will invent and use terms for them.
No one but pedants and marketers will care which words or phrases are
ultimately chosen. The IETF can speed up and slightly steer the choice,
but no one can prevent it. We got to choose the word "Internet" but
did not entirely control the definition (recall small 'i' "internet").
We lost on "intranet" "catnet" and many other terms.
The useful things that this draft might accomplish are:
- make the choice of terms happen within or a year instead of the
years that the current definition "Internet" needed.
- make the people who have more control than the IETF over the choice
of terms for the emerging clases Internet service think about the
words they want. They are in marketing organizations.
Consumer ISPs are not offering the kinds or classes of IP service that
I would want. It is insane to ignore that reality. It would be little
better to insist that governments will not eventually get involved or
that there will be no common terms for the various common classes of
IP services and ISPs.
] From: Masataka Ohta
<mohta(_at_)necom830(_dot_)hpcl(_dot_)titech(_dot_)ac(_dot_)jp>
] > But if we had a precise definition and a taxonomy of the
] > different classes of ISPs,
]
] Then, all the IP and non-IP providers can now leagaly (some
] illegaly a little beyond the scope of so generous RFC) say
] they are ISPs and most end users have no chance to know the
] differences of the taxonomy.
No,
- Whatever happens with this draft, it will not have anything like
the force of law. The IETF does not have powers over terms
equivalent to the groups that name species, chemical compounds,
and astronomical bodies.
- all the IP and non-IP providers in most of the world can now
legally call themselves "ISPs." The IETF could not change that.
- The terms the world eventually uses for the various classes of IP
service and types of ISPs will differ from the consensus of the
IETF. This draft can only crystalize the choices. Seed crystals
influence the shape of a solid, but do not control it.
- the main reason "end users have no chance to know the differences"
delineated by the taxonomy is that the taxonomy does not yet
exist. When it exists, users will know as much of it as they
care to, just as they now know or don't know the differences among
"web," "Internet," and "telephone."
Users who do not distinguish between "web" and "Internet" also
think "WebTV" is Internet service. IETF cannot change that. That
VoIP, text messaging, and cell phones are changing the definitions
of "telephone" and "telephone company" is part of my point.
Much of the good this draft might do will be done simply by discussing
in public differences among IP service classes and choices of terms.
After the taxonomy is crystalized, it will be out of the IETF's control.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf