Terminology for Describing Internet Connectivity
draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-04

[Ballot comment]
Reviewed by John Loughney, Gen-ART

His review:

Looks good, ship it.

A few nits to correct:

1) Expand ISP upon first usage.
2) Expand NAT upon first usage.
  -> note that many non-English speakers forget what ISP or NAT really
    stand for.
3) Insert blank line between additional definitions in section 4.
4) Should a rough defination of broadband be attempted?
5) Should RFC2119 be a normative reference? One must read it (or have
  read it) to understand the meanings of MAY, SHOULD, MUST.

[Ballot comment]
The citation of RADIUS (section 4) seems odd -- that's strictly a back-end function, and isn't visible to the user.

The Web connectivity definition(section 2) should note whether or not https is provided for email access.  Similar discussions may be appropriate for things like email submission servers.

[Ballot comment]
Jorge's response on liability risk:
---

Date: fredag, oktober 01, 2004 09:45:45 -0400
From: "Contreras, Jorge"
To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand (E-mail)"
Cc:
Subject: FW: draft-klensin-ip-service-terms

Hi Harald,

This is the response that I gave this summer on the question raised by
Section 7 of John Klensin's ID.  Please let me know if you need more.

Best regards,
Jorge

-----Original Message-----
From: Contreras, Jorge
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 11:50 AM
To: 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'
Subject: RE: draft-klensin-ip-service-terms


Harald,

This issue isn't unique to John's RFC.  In fact, the potential risk is much
greater when you are dealing with a technical (rather than a definitional)
standard that could be adopted as a regulatory requirement.  The IETF rules
were developed with this risk in mind.  This is one of the reasons that
openness and procedural checks and balances are included in the standards
process (other than the inherent improvements that they may offer to the
process).

Thus, as long as John's I-D goes through the normal standards process, and
is subject to open discussion, debate and modification by all interested
parties, I don't see any substantial risk.

Jorge

-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 4:17 AM
To: Contreras, Jorge
Subject: draft-klensin-ip-service-terms


Jorge,

could you take a look at draft-klensin-ip-service-terms, defining terms
that could be used to describe IP service offerings, from a liability
standpoint?

I think the "interesting" aspecs are if these terms turn up in RFPs or
legal requirements, and someone whose service doesn't match the
requirements of a specific requested/required level shouts "restraint of
trade".

John put some of that into section 7 of the doc.
Draft attached.

                      Harald


---------- End Forwarded Message ----------