Re: [arch-d] FYI: closure of the IAB Stack Evolution program

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

> On Aug 25, 2019, at 12:16 PM, Henning Schulzrinne <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Some of us who worked on the Open Internet (aka network neutrality) saw "protocol neutrality" as very much part of the same spirit and possibly a legal entitlement of customers. And the issue of naming "Internet access" implying some obligations was also part of the discussion. Experience seems to indicate that only legal or regulatory requirements are likely to lead there,

That hasn’t been the case for SONET, ATM, or Ethernet services.

If we had a clear definition of “ISOC-certified Internet service”, then:
	a) customers might be willing to seek that
	b) customers who pay for that have a clear legal path if that’s what was offered and it isn’t true

People pay more for UL-listed equipment, for Good Housekeeping seals of approval, etc. This isn’t any different, except the we have no “seal” authority - yet.

> given that many carriers have no economic interest to do this - and carrier-grade NATs make it painful or impossible to move beyond TCP and UDP.
> 
> Henning

We could have two versions of service - ISOC-certified true Internet and ISOC-certified translated Internet (the latter so we don’t freeze out carriers to start). People might pay more for the former.

——

The trouble with ignoring the need for this sort of certification at the ISOC level is that we’ve basically dumped that work onto the user at run-time - to confirm every feature before using it - and at the protocol level (by adding complex “are you sure” mechanisms).

Joe