Subject: Re: (radius) documents wedge over track confusion

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 12:38:34 -0800

> Phrased differently, billing is a statistical method of recouping costs.
> Statistical errors in the data can be adequately corrected in the math.

i anticipate a bit of a problem explaining this to the lawyers and
accountants at the isp for which i work.

randy
-
To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
'unsubscribe ietf-radius' in the body of the message.

---

From: "Steven P. Crain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 07:41:00 -0500 (EST)

> accountants at the isp for which i work.

I think his point is that one of your routine business expences is .00001%
revenue loss from lost accounting packets, which is added into the
overhead and accounted for in the rate you quote customers. 

And yes, I think the percentage I quote is reasonable relative to our
company, or perhaps a little high.  An average packet is only worth a
tenth of a cent.  At that rate we could easily absorb a 1% packet loss,
which is *much* higher than we see in practice (about .001%).

-- 
Steven P. Crain, Development
http://www.shore.net/~scrain
Shore.Net: Local Ties... World Class Connections

Like a bird that strays from its nest is a man who strays from his home.

-

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 06:15:10 -0800

> overhead and accounted for in the rate you quote customers. 

and my point was how do i explain to the lawyers and accountants that they
can have confidence that number is .00001% as opposed to 1%.

randy
-

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 11:31:18 -0800

>can have confidence that number is .00001% as opposed to 1%.

Probably the same way you explain to them your predicted variance of human 
error in the billing process?

-

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 11:36:38 -0800

>> and my point was how do i explain to the lawyers and accountants that
>> they can have confidence that number is .00001% as opposed to 1%.

i don't have to do that.  this is a new, to the lawyers and accountants,
variance.  and they just love new variances and welcome them with open
hearts and minds.

randy
-

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 11:59:33 -0800

>variance.  and they just love new variances and welcome them with open

Sounds like a personal problem. :)

It also sounds like we are getting way too far into the business practices 
realms which the IETF prefers to avoid for good reason. One of the reasons 
is that business practices and the laws associated with them vary greatly 
around the world. What bothers your lawyers may not trouble other ISP's 
lawyers.

So while I and most everyone else agree that it would be nice to have 
non-repudiation and guaranteed delivery of billing data, we should also 
agree that it would be very difficult to do that in a proxy environment 
with RADIUS. Again, RADIUS is what it is and all we are doing here is 
documenting it. The current IESG direction (as far as we can tell) is to 
take our wishes, desires and requirements to the AAA WG.

-

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 16:56:33 -0800

> with RADIUS.

yup.  and all anybody is asking is that the document mention that there are
problems.

randy
-