Subject: belated apology

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:47:23 -0400

I'd like to publically apologize to Randy Bush for the tone of my 
response to his message from earlier this week.

Randy was quite correct to point out that any terms that IETF might
develop to describe ISPs might not be consistent with any particular
provider's offerings.  And though I have heard far too many attempts
to use "business models" to justify technical brain-damage and worse,
it was indeed a leap on my part to assume that Randy was referring 
to that type of business model. 

Keith

p.s. I do however think that, given the tendency of various providers 
these days to violate the internet protocol specifications and
erode the ability of applications to run on the network,  the 
community might benefit from some kind of "standardized" (in the
loose sense) description of IP service (rather than ISPs) that could be 
specified by customers.  and IETF would appear to be the organization 
which is best suited to define such terms.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:57:48 -0700

jeezus!  no need.  i can take it as well as dish it.  but thanks, i hear
you.

randy

---

From: "Brijesh Kumar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 10:10:03 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 10:47 PM
> I do however think that, given the tendency of various providers

Keith,

It is akin to standardizing on what kind of light can come in your
neighbourhood. The vast majority of consumers care for applications,
not the transport that provides those services. This is why AOL can
have 25 million subscribers even though most technical people seem to
think very lowly of AOL (you can use only aol mail tool and nothing
else). As a technical person, you may not like their solution, but
they appear to meet requirements of their target market. The same
thing is true with WAP solutions on PDAs.

Standards, no matter who creates them and with what intensions, can't
be forced on either carriers or consumers. You can achieve better
results by supporting networks and solutions that are in line with
what you call "standardized IP", and clearly laying out benefits of
doing so for the rest of the world. If  "non-compliant" networks start
losing customers, they will see merits in transforming their
solutions.

Cheers,

--brijesh
Ennovate Networks Inc.

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:49:56 -0400

Brijesh Kumar wrote:

> As a technical person, you may not like their solution, but
> they appear to meet requirements of their target market.

Emphasis on "appear".  The non-ISPs provide services that appear to be
Internet access, but aren't.  The big problem is when new protocols come
along that permit new functionality, but can't reach the non-ISPs'
users.  This hurts developers, of course, because it limits our user
base; but it also hurts the non-ISPs' users (obviously) *and* all other
users (by Metcalfe's Law).

--
/=================================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.   |
|Chief Scientist |================================================|
|eCal Corp.      |"Where's your sense of adventure?" "Hiding under|
[email-masked]|the bed."                                       |
\=================================================================/

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:42:19 +0100 (BST)

> users (by Metcalfe's Law).

...but benefits the non-ISPs, who can charge for selectively
introducing any new service (even if it's e.g. by opening a port in
their firewall.)

The telco mindset has never really gone away. No wonder there's so
much emphasis on e.g. tunnelling everything on top of http...

L.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 12:56:56 -0400

> introducing any new service (even if it's e.g. by opening a port in

Only if they take the narrow view.  In the long run, by putting up the walled
garden, the non-ISP reduces the number of potential users for any new
service, which makes it less likely for that service to get enough momentum
to be accepted.  And, of course, any new, popular Internet service is
valuable to all ISPs, since it increases the value of their service.

|eCal Corp.      |It's not an optical illusion, it just looks like|
[email-masked]|one.                                            |

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 08:46:22 +0859 ()

Keith;

> which is best suited to define such terms.

It exactly what IETF is (or, at least, was) doing, when loose sense
means "standard to be used on the Internet".

IETF is "Internet Engineering Task Force", not "IP Engineering
Task Force".

IETF can't say anything to braindead protocols of braindead providers
in their purely private IP network.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:56:03 -0700

> neighbourhood.

properly done, and with no adjectives or judgement spin, it could be a
taxonomy of what kinds of light are known.  this might be useful, witness
a recent discussion re wap of what is being on the internet.

randy

---

From: "Brijesh Kumar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:06:36 -0400

> From: Randy Bush [mailto:[email-masked]]

> a recent discussion re wap of what is being on the internet.

Hi Randy,

Yes - both AOL and WAP aren't IP solutions in true sense, but both are
unqualified commercial success for the organizations promoting them.
Yes, you can go ahead and blame AOL and WAP forum for them but who
would you blame for creating NAT. NAT is no less offender of the end
to end design paradigm, than WAP and AOL. Why criticize WAP forum if
it decided not to hide wireless devices behind NAT boxes.

After hearing Java and Windows on every device, I am hearing NAT and
BGP for every thing from some vendors. Who is controlling these
standards - is it IETF. Or it is OK to do any thing as long as your
implementation gets published as an I-D or RFC (in that case AOL and
WAP forums should perhaps publish their specs as RFCs). Hear..hear..

Cheers,

--brijesh
(personal views only)

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 09:42:49 +0859 ()

Brijesh;

> NAT is no less offender of the end
> to end design paradigm, than WAP and AOL.

Of course.

Who said otherwise?

							Masataka Ohta