Re: Categorization of TCP/IP service provision types (was: Re: The right to refuse, was: Re: Principles of Spam-abatement) (FWD: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-00.txt)
At 19:19 22/03/04, John C Klensin wrote: The subject is not going to do away as long as people think they have a fundamental human right to do the equivalent of moving to a cardboard box under a bridge and then demanding banks and creditcard companies to see them as creditworthy as their bourgeois neighbors. Of course, that belief is not limited to the Internet... for better or worse. Actually it could be a way of describing mobiles. And it also works for 5 years old kids. jfc
Re: Categorization of TCP/IP service provision types (was: Re: The right to refuse, was: Re: Principles of Spam-abatement) (FWD: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-00.txt)
--On Friday, 19 March, 2004 18:34 -0700 Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: John C Klensin Last week's version of the spam discussions, led to an interesting (to me) side-discussion about what was, and was not, an Internet connection service. ... draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-00.txt. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-ip-service-t erms-00.txt This clearly isn't finished, indeed, it is not much more than a skeleton with a few examples. It needs more work, probably additional categories, and more clarity about the categories that are there. I think it is about as clear as it should be. Much more clearity would require sample contracts or risk getting bogged down in nitpicking on whether it is practical to run an SMTP server on a dynamic IP address, whether an IP address that changes once a year is really dynamic, and so forth. Those are the places where I clearly don't think we should go. To do so rapidly gets us, I think, to a function matrix. That would be conceptually useful, but would not be extremely unlikely to be adopted by vendors and hence would not help at all with the promote truth in advertising theme that started the attempt. What I see missing are hints why dynamic addresses are widely blacklisted. There need to be words about the first three classes usually being priced so low that providers cannot afford to keep records of who was using a given address when it was used to send spam, denial of service attacks, or other naughtiness, or cannot afford to have abuse department to consult any records there might be. Text would be welcome, but it seems to me that this addresses a different theme. One could say that quality of customer service usually improves with categories, but that isn't universally true until one starts making categories of customer service efforts. From my experience, I would even question your description above, although we don't disagree about the consequences: my impression is that a number of the broadband operators offering low-end services actually have fairly good logs. What they don't have are abuse departments with the will and resources to dig through those logs and identify specific offenders. Hand that same provider a subpoena associated with, e.g., some clearly criminal behavior, and records seem to turn up in a lot of cases. What I've done in response to several comments is to add text to the beginning of the terminology section that tries to make it clear that these definitions are about what the provider intends to offer. Whether the restrictions are imposed by AUP (or contractual terms and conditions) and whether technical means to enforce particular restrictions are effective on a particular day seems less important. The dynamic address issue is, from that point of view, just a technical means to enforce (or just consistent with) an AUP or Ts and Cs. I.e., if one believes that blacklisting dynamic addresses is rational, then part of the reason for that isn't too cheap or the addresses themselves, it is that these dynamic addresses tend to show up only in server prohibited environments. Maybe it is equally rational to blacklist an address range on the theory that anything coming from that range is in violation of provider conditions of service and that one bad deed (violating AUPs or Ts and Cs) is as bad as another (demonstrated spamming). But I don't see a reasonable way to incorporate any of that reasoning (whether one agrees with it or not) into the document without generally weakening it. If you do, please suggest text. If there is real interest in the subject, I'd like to see someone else take over the writing and editing. If there isn't any real, perhaps we can stop spending time discussing the subject. The subject is not going to do away as long as people think they have a fundamental human right to do the equivalent of moving to a cardboard box under a bridge and then demanding banks and creditcard companies to see them as creditworthy as their bourgeois neighbors. Of course, that belief is not limited to the Internet... for better or worse. If no one else will take the job and if there is any hope of getting it past the IESG, I'll happily be your editor, elaborator, or whatever. My strengths don't include writing intelligible English, but it needs doing. Thanks. I've started a discussion with some selected ADs about what they want to do with this, if anything. My intent is to wait to see what they have to say. If they aren't interested, and interested in moving toward BCP, then the effort is, as far as I'm concerned, dead. If they want a WG, then the next real task is charter. Otherwise... well, let's how they want to proceed. And, as far as I can tell, you do intelligible English very well. john
Re: Categorization of TCP/IP service provision types (was: Re: The right to refuse, was: Re: Principles of Spam-abatement) (FWD: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-00.txt)
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:19:12 -0500, John C Klensin wrote: And, as far as I can tell, you do intelligible English very well. I am travelling just now but when I come to rest I volunteer to look over if this would be of value. Jeffrey Race
Re: Categorization of TCP/IP service provision types (was: Re: The right to refuse, was: Re: Principles of Spam-abatement) (FWD: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-00.txt)
From: John C Klensin Last week's version of the spam discussions, led to an interesting (to me) side-discussion about what was, and was not, an Internet connection service. ... draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-00.txt. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-00.txt This clearly isn't finished, indeed, it is not much more than a skeleton with a few examples. It needs more work, probably additional categories, and more clarity about the categories that are there. I think it is about as clear as it should be. Much more clearity would require sample contracts or risk getting bogged down in nitpicking on whether it is practical to run an SMTP server on a dynamic IP address, whether an IP address that changes once a year is really dynamic, and so forth. What I see missing are hints why dynamic addresses are widely blacklisted. There need to be words about the first three classes usually being priced so low that providers cannot afford to keep records of who was using a given address when it was used to send spam, denial of service attacks, or other naughtiness, or cannot afford to have abuse department to consult any records there might be. If there is real interest in the subject, I'd like to see someone else take over the writing and editing. If there isn't any real, perhaps we can stop spending time discussing the subject. The subject is not going to do away as long as people think they have a fundamental human right to do the equivalent of moving to a cardboard box under a bridge and then demanding banks and creditcard companies to see them as creditworthy as their bourgeois neighbors. If no one else will take the job and if there is any hope of getting it past the IESG, I'll happily be your editor, elaborator, or whatever. My strengths don't include writing intelligible English, but it needs doing. Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Categorization of TCP/IP service provision types (was: Re: The right to refuse, was: Re: Principles of Spam-abatement) (FWD: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-00.txt)
Last week's version of the spam discussions, led to an interesting (to me) side-discussion about what was, and was not, an Internet connection service. There have been discussions on and off for years (since before the User Services area was inactivated) about doing such a set of definitions. On my general theory that it is better to try to actually do something than it is to discuss forever how desirable it might be, I've hacked a preliminary document together and posted it as draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-00.txt. This clearly isn't finished, indeed, it is not much more than a skeleton with a few examples. It needs more work, probably additional categories, and more clarity about the categories that are there. If there is real interest in the subject, I'd like to see someone else take over the writing and editing. If there isn't any real, perhaps we can stop spending time discussing the subject. I-D announcement attached. john ---BeginMessage--- A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Terminology for Describing Internet Connectivivy Author(s) : J. Klensin Filename: draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-00.txt Pages : 6 Date: 2004-3-17 As the Internet has evolved, many types of arrangements have been advertised and sold as 'Internet connectivity'. Because these may differ significantly in the capabilities they offer, the range of options, and the lack of any standard terminology, has cause considerable consumer confusion. This document provides a list of terms and definitions that may be helpful to providers, consumers, and, potentially, regulators in clarifying the type and character of services being offered. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-00.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username anonymous and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type cd internet-drafts and then get draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-00.txt. A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body type: FILE /internet-drafts/draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-00.txt. NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the mpack utility. To use this feature, insert the command ENCODING mime before the FILE command. To decode the response(s), you will need munpack or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with multipart MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-00.txt ---End Message---
