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

[Henning Schulzrinne <[e-mail]>]

Given that the economic incentives are against providing such services, and
competition in most jurisdictions is weak or largely non-existent (US) and
that competition for user-invisible features is difficult, you are asking
for regulatory intervention. (Nothing wrong with that - you could consider
this a version of a market failure.)

The additional problem is that you need near-100% compliance to allow
systems designers to rely on these capabilities. Thus, unless almost every
ISP allows non-UDP/TCP transport layers, nobody is going to be building
such layers.

As a matter of terminology, we also seem to be re-iterating the old
discussion that layers are no longer quite as simple as they used to be in
the 1980s, where the function of a layer can now be broken up into multiple
sub-layers, shims or whatever else you'd want to call them. As an older
example, you could argue that RTP is a (specialized) transport protocol,
used with UDP or TCP, for timing-sensitive applications.

Henning

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 1:41 AM Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Aug 25, 2019, at 10:30 PM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> When should my ISP start billing me for the "true Internet" service?
> When it works with Google, or with everyone? If the former: Does it
> matter? If the latter: would it ever happen?
>
>
> 1. provide endpoint services that use certified implementations
> 2. give me real Internet service, per below
>
> No, this won’t fix everything. But it’s the set of steps we need to take
> first.
>
> The next step is to highlight where these rules don’t work as not working.
> Not endorse them as “de facto changes to the baseline”.
>
> Joe
>
> Bill of Internet Access Rights
>
> Joe Touch
> USC/ISI
> June 21, 2006
> (this is an update of a set of rules originally presented at "Preventing
> the Internet Meltdown", Los Angeles CA 2004; the original is also presented
> below)
>
> Internet is an association of communicating parties. This necessarily
> results in a number of rights which are required for consenting parties to
> communicate. Consenting parties should be able to communicate in an
> unrestricted fashion, insofar as they do not impinge on the corresponding
> rights of other parties. The following is a list of specific rights to that
> end:
>
> 1. REAL IP: Users have the right to obtain a real IP address, routable
> from anywhere on the Internet.
>
> 2. REAL DNS (& REVERSE-DNS): Users have the right to obtain a valid
> reverse DNS name for that IP address, and the forward lookup of that name
> should match the same address.
>
> 3. RECEIVE ANY: Users have the right to receive any valid IP packet, using
> any valid transport protocol on any valid port (if applicable), up to the
> limits of your local resources and network connection.
>
> 4. SEND ANY: Users have the right to send any valid IP packet to any valid
> real IP address, using any transport protocol, on any valid port (if
> applicable), provided it uses an inconsequential amount of resources of the
> network and potential receiver until mutual consent is established.
>
> 5. ENFORCEMENT: Users have the right to know the ISP responsible for
> traffic from any valid IP address, sufficient to register a complaint
> regarding violations of any of these rules.
>
>