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