Re: ISPACs
Paul Resnick <presnick@research.att.com> Sat, 14 December 1996 20:16 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa25451; 14 Dec 96 15:16 EST
Received: from nico.aarnet.edu.au by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18353; 14 Dec 96 15:16 EST
Received: from ns.att.com (ns.research.att.com [192.20.225.4]) by nico.aarnet.edu.au (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id GAA07513 for <cidrd@iepg.org>; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 06:24:05 +1100
Received: from research.att.com by ns; Sat Dec 14 14:23:10 EST 1996
Received: from raptor.research.att.com by research; Sat Dec 14 14:22:04 EST 1996
Received: from trust.research.att.com ([135.46.192.175]) by raptor.research.att.com (8.7.5/8.7) with SMTP id OAA24129; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 14:21:59 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961214192158.0074026c@raptor.research.att.com>
X-Sender: presnick@raptor.research.att.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 14:21:58 -0500
To: Brian Carpenter CERN-CN <brian@dxcoms.cern.ch>, curtis@ans.net
From: Paul Resnick <presnick@research.att.com>
Subject: Re: ISPACs
Cc: tli@jnx.com, justin@erols.com, cidrd@iepg.org
>Curtis Villamizar wrote (in part): >Regardless of whether or not it is a good business model, >RFCs are not the way to propose business models. >Brian Carpenter wrote (in part): >I said in the open IAB that the IAB has advised the IESG that >the IETF should not work on specific business models or practices, >but may and should work on mechanisms which will support various >business models. A lot of IAB and IETF people are uncomfortable about the increasing discussion of business-related matters. I don't think either of the summaries above, however, capture the appropriate role for IETF. Nature of Innovation Nature of implication -------------------- --------------------- 1. Technical Technical 2. Technical Business 3. Business Technical 4. Business Business Presumably everyone agrees that items of type 1 (technical innovation with technical implication) should be discussed at IETF and be written about in RFCs. Brian and Curtis imply that items of type 2 are also acceptable for IETF discussion. I argue that we need also to include type 3, business innovations that have technical implications, such as number portability or scalable routing. It's my experience that technical people are often better at understanding business concepts than the reverse. As a result, we need to discuss, understand, and document the technical implications of business practices, rather than leaving these matters purely to the business types. I agree that we should exclude items of type 4. That is, IETF need not discuss the business implications of a business innovation. That means, in this case, that we can ignore such questions as whether a business-savvy ISP should join an ISPAC. We should, however, point out the level of technical interdependence among ISPs in an ISPAC, as Justin Newton has done. ------------------------------------------------------------ Paul Resnick AT&T Labs Public Policy Research Room 2C-430A 908-582-5370 (voice) 600 Mountain Avenue 908-582-4113 (fax) P.O. Box 636 presnick@research.att.com Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636 http://www.research.att.com/~presnick
- ISPACs Tony Li
- Re: ISPACs Curtis Villamizar
- Re: ISPACs Tony Li
- Re: ISPACs Justin W. Newton
- Re: ISPACs Vadim Antonov
- Re: ISPACs Tony Li
- Re: ISPACs Tony Li
- Re: ISPACs Stephen Stuart
- Re: ISPACs Vadim Antonov
- Re: ISPACs John W. Stewart III
- Re: ISPACs Justin W. Newton
- Re: ISPACs Tony Li
- Re: ISPACs Justin W. Newton
- Re: ISPACs Tony Li
- Re: ISPACs Curtis Villamizar
- Re: ISPACs Justin W. Newton
- Re: ISPACs Tony Li
- Re: ISPACs Tony Li
- Re: ISPACs Tony Li
- Re: ISPACs Justin W. Newton
- Re: ISPACs Dave Siegel
- Re: ISPACs Justin W. Newton
- RE: ISPACs Mathew Lodge
- Re: ISPACs Tony Li
- Re: ISPACs Paul Resnick
- Re: ISPACs Tony Li
- Re: ISPACs Curtis Villamizar
- Re: ISPACs Brian Carpenter CERN-CN
- Re: ISPACs Paul Resnick
- Re: ISPACs Tony Li
- Re: ISPACs Brian Carpenter CERN-CN