Re: [hrpc] new title for draft-tenoever-hrpc-political

[Tony Rutkowski <[e-mail]>]

Very useful discussion of characteristics of a definition.  This should
definitely be in the draft - although the implications with respect to
standards is not clear.

"Non-reliance on transitive and pre-existing contractual relationships
all along the path" seems worth exploring.  Presumably, you mean to
include only layer 3 and above.  The only ones at lower layers that
could apply are radio internets - and those are significantly regulated
and subject to licensing except for local access - although even there,
they are subject to type-acceptance regimes.

Are there any internetworks in existence today that don't rely on
transitive and pre-existing contractual relationships?  I'm not aware of
any, but may be wrong.  Does that disqualify them from being an
internetwork? 

Are treaty instruments applicable as "contracts" among Nation States? 
All Nation States by treaty among all 193 of them, agree that each has
absolute sovereignty within their jurisdiction, and the ITU treaty
instruments are the basis for admitting all extraterritorial
internetwork traffic. communication. 

-t


On 19-Aug-18 10:48 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> The definition that I was using (which you quoted) did not depend on
> connectionless datagram protocols.  Indeed, I think you could make an
> internet out of a connection-oriented protocol, and I'm not even sure
> that a datagram protocol is a necessary condition for an internet
> (though it seems like a good idea).  Part of the definition I'm
> arguing for here includes a measure of policy consideration: the
> non-reliance on transitive and pre-existing contractual relationships
> all along the path.  Telephone networks are, in my reading,
> fundamentally dependent on such relationships by design.