This directly relates to the Skype discussion during the plenary. Skype
will, if necessary, tunnel media on port 80 and port 443.
To some extent, the debate also highlights a lack of usable protocol
tools: One reason, albeit likely not the only one, that there is talk
about per-source "wholesale" charging for "improved" QoS is that we
don't currently have a viable inter-provider "retail" mechanism that
allows individuals and small companies, for example, to request and pay
for a fixed-bandwidth pipe between random points on the Internet on
short notice. The inability to offer such services also biases things
like IPTV towards being provided by those owning the wires and DSLAMs,
rather than third parties, even without explicit discrimination.
Henning
Tony Hain wrote:
I didn't make it to the mic fast enough at the end, but Brian's comment
about the proposal to outlaw diffserv actually gets to the heart of why the
IAB needs to take specific stands and make public comments. Telling the
telco's they are evil is not the point. General statements of principle or
observations of past behavior like 'walled gardens are not conducive to open
application innovation and frequently result in additional layering
complexity to traverse the walls', or 'allowing people to elect going to the
head of the line is what the QoS toolset is about'. I am not sure what the
right language is but there is probably something the IAB could say about
misusing the tools to effectively set up an extortion/protection racket
being a possible side effect that regulators might want to consider, but
that cutting off the tools outright would actually hamper some potential new
service and application development.
The point is that if the IAB stands back without making any statement there
will be no guidance about the impacts of various business/deployment models.
Something along the lines of 4084 that takes no particular position of right
or wrong, but identifies the consequences of potential actions might help to
stabilize the public debate. After all even open application development
might be considered wrong by some, but when coupled with the observation
that it happens anyway with more complexity and cost might get all the
fundamental issues on the table.
Tony
_______________________________________________
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