Subject: Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt

From: Greg Skinner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:01:34 -0700 (PDT)

Keith Moore <[email-masked]> wrote:

> the reason I say that your statement is content-free is that it offers
> no specific criticism of IETF that can be used in a constructive fashion.

With respect to this particular thread, the only criticism I'd make is
I don't see how the draft in question will alter the business practices of
AOL or any other large Internet access provider that does not provide
full Internet service.  I think the draft is useful for protocol
developers who may require interoperability across NAT boundaries, and
network managers who may need to explain why certain architectures may
cause certain protocols to break.  Beyond that, I don't see that it will
cause any significant change in the business practices of companies who
have decided (for whatever reasons) that it is not necessary to give any
(or all) of their customers full Internet service.

The IETF might perhaps take an advocacy position for traditional Internet
service.  An RFC on the order of "Full Internet Access is Good" might
sway a few people who are unaware of the wealth of services a full
provider offers.  On the other hand, a provider that actually offers
such services is much more likely (imho) to have success among a
potential customer base for them, and arguably has more resources to do so.
By this I mean the money for a PR campaign, advertising, etc.

> I find that the work of IETF varies in quality - much of it is quite
> good, some of it mediocre, a small fraction is highly dubious.
> Most IETF WGs I've worked with do not operate with an attitude like
> "people will have to do what we say", but rather "how do we solve
> this problem".  Most of them seem to understand that they have not
> only to solve the problem, but also to make the solution technically
> sound, attractive to those who would use it, and easy to deploy.

OK, in this case, what is the problem that needs to be solved, from the
standpoint of AOL?  Their customers, for the most part, are either unaware
that there is a problem, or the problem does not currently affect them.  If
enough of their customers feel it is a problem, no doubt AOL will change
their business practices (because if they fail to do so they will lose
business to access providers who will solve their problems).

So, what is the problem we are trying to solve here, and is the IETF the
organization that can provide the most effective solution?

--gregbo

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 09:46:51 -0400

> By this I mean the money for a PR campaign, advertising, etc.

On the other other hand, such a PR campaign might be able to gain some weight
by quoting the RFC.

--
/================================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.  |
|Chief Scientist |===============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |All I ask is a chance to prove that money can't|
[email-masked]|make me happy.                                 |
\================================================================/