I meant the royal "you" (apologies :) No, you are right about the consensus. The notion that this WG can and should change the business practices of public access networks runs deep.
I'm not taking sides on these "net neutrality" issues... Indeed, they are hugely important -- GO VOTE! But, soapboxes aside, what we do with ICMP here will not change business models that already exist today... On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 9:11 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 4:07 PM, David Bird <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> My point was that there's no use in having that discussion, because we >>> know there are strong opinions on both sides and thus we're not likely to >>> get consensus. >>> >> >> My point is that you are the one *making* this a discussion not likely to >> get consensus by loading the question with statements like "you can >> reach facebook, but to reach CNN you need to upgrade to another service >> plan" ... which isn't a problem with ICMP per se, rather how you don't >> like how some public access networks operate... >> > > Sure. I could be wrong. If you think you can reach rough consensus, don't > let me stop you from trying. >
_______________________________________________ Captive-portals mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
