Re: [p2pi] Fwd: For those who think "User Fairness/Cost Fairness" isunacceptable...

["Peterson, Jon" <[e-mail]>]

 

I'd like to second this.

 

We're certainly not here to pass judgment on Comcast or any other
network provider. What the IETF can do is engineer tools that may
improve the interaction between applications and the underlying network,
where previous assumptions about the relationship between those entities
have proven unreliable. The P2P case under examination here is such an
instance, and thus we have a few choices about what behaviors we might
tweak to alleviate the undesirable symptoms.

 

I'd like to keep the discussion here focused, to the degree that we can,
on what engineering deliverables we can identify and act upon. Is there
anything outside the proposed scope of TANA and ALTO that we've missed,
and that we should consider for IETF action? As a part of this ongoing
discussion, I personally find Comcast's updates on their planned trials
valuable, and I think the data that will result from those trials could
be very useful in refining the problem space as the IETF continues to
think through these problems. I would certainly be disappointed if our
prejudgment of those trials, or hostility to business models, ultimately
deprived us of that data.

 

The manner in which Comcast chooses to operate their network, and
collect revenues, is not something we can or should decide - nor should
this mailing list be a pillory where we revisit management practices
that no one here is going to advocate.

 

Jon Peterson

NeuStar, Inc.

 

________________________________

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Richard Bennett
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 5:27 PM
To: Robb Topolski
Cc: [e-mail]; Livingood, Jason
Subject: Re: [p2pi] Fwd: For those who think "User Fairness/Cost
Fairness" isunacceptable...

 

This isn't a court of law, and it's not our mandate to determine who the
good guys (or good practices) are and who's being bad. It's certainly
not an established fact that an application-neutral per-user fairness
regime is "disruptive to the intended use of the Internet" or any such
thing; in fact, the evidence leads to quite a different conclusion.

Similarly, packet inspection (deep or shallow, if there is such a thing)
without retention for the purpose of prioritizing is quite a different
animal than packet inspection for the purpose of retaining personal
information  to be used for commercial or other purposes. 

Similarly, speculations about the viability of metered pricing are
probably not productive, given that it's already the norm on most
Internet access networks in the world. The Internet is, after all, a
global phenomenon and not simply a slice of American life.

I'd prefer to focus the energies of this group in a more productive
direction, namely to identify means of harmonizing the needs and
requirements of groups of users on shared network links, given that
"infinite bandwidth at no cost" is outside the solution space.

RB

Robb Topolski wrote: 

(Adding to my own message)

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Robb Topolski <[e-mail]>
wrote:

 

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Livingood, Jason
<[e-mail]> wrote:

	 

	I was a bit thrown off by your RFC 1087 reference, "Ethics and
the Internet" from 1989.  Perhaps that RFC is somewhat geared towards a
non-commercial past, when as it says, the Internet is a "national
facility" used mostly by researchers. 

The reference is historical, relating to "Recent events involving the
hosts on the Internet and 

in similar network infrastructures underscore the need to reiterate the
professional responsibility every Internet user bears to colleagues ..."

 

		Can you advise your specific technical areas of concern,
as it relates to this RFC (see below)?


They are these acts, which Comcast's current RST method and proposed
"Protocol Agnostic" method violate.
 

      (b) disrupts the intended use of the Internet,

      (c) wastes resources (people, capacity, computer) through such
          actions,

      (d) destroys the integrity of computer-based information,

      (e) compromises the privacy of users.

 


All, please be clear that WRT to RFC 1087 I'm using it as an example and
expressing my criticisms at the methods being employed, not the persons
and companies themselves.  The effects of using Protocol discrimination
or Consumption discrimination are these four effects above.  

Comcast is here participating -- not here acting "unethically."
Unfortunately, the title of RFC 1087 is something like "Ethics and the
Internet."  Please do not interpret this fact as a criticism of Comcast
or its participation here.  Please do interpret my message as a
criticism of both the old and their new proposed method.

Thank you to the individual who sent me a corrective message in private.
It did look like a shot, and that wasn't what I was going for.


-- 
Robb Topolski ([e-mail])
Hillsboro, Oregon USA
http://www.funchords.com/ 

 



________________________________



 
_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi
  





-- 
Richard Bennett

_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi