Jon;
> >>Any comments on the content of the draft?
>
> I would go further - first to define by exclusion, secondly to define
> a new class of providers (according tro common uisage) so that
> discussion can proceed
My intention is to provide a semi permanent definition as an Informational
RFC.
It is important to make the definition protected by bogus opinions
of various bodies including IETF.
> An ISP _hosts_ its own and customer's hosts. Hosts follow the
> hosts requirements RFC, at least.
>
> An ISP uses routers to interconnect its, its customers, and other to ISPs
> networks, Routers follow the router requirements RFC, at least.
They are requirements by IETF.
Worse, even in IETF, there is no Internet Standard of router requirements
yet and the newest revision to the Proposed Standard is BCP.
So, please don't attempt to rely on it.
> Service Organisations that don't allow a host or router that follows the above
> definition to excercise capabilities defined are what we now know as
> Content Service Providers, and must provide application level gateways,
> Application Service Providers, and offer portals or ALGs. In each case there
> may be good performance or security reasons for this mode of service, but
> there will usually be lack of flexibility or ease of introdution to new
> services, content and applications in general.
I think my draft covers the case to make such network providers
not ISPs.
> personal comment
> Other classes of organisation may simply be providing a subset of
> internet services - I don't see a market or technical case for these
> and in fact would encourage regulatory bodies to see if these types of
> organisations are trying to achieve lock out or are engaged in
> other types of monopolistic or anti-competitive behaviour. :-)
I just want to make it illegal for these types of organisations call
their service "Internet" or "internet".
It's something like "Olympic".
Masataka Ohta
