Network Working Group J. Klensin
Internet-Draft March 16, 2004
Expires: September 14, 2004
Terminology for Describing Internet Connectivivy
draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-00.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3667.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 14, 2004.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
As the Internet has evolved, many types of arrangements have been
advertised and sold as "Internet connectivity". Because these may
differ significantly in the capabilities they offer, the range of
options, and the lack of any standard terminology, has cause
considerable consumer confusion. This document provides a list of
terms and definitions that may be helpful to providers, consumers,
and, potentially, regulators in clarifying the type and character of
services being offered.
Klensin Expires September 14, 2004 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IP Service Terms March 2004
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 The Problem and the Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Adoption and a Non-pejorative Terminology . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 6
Klensin Expires September 14, 2004 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IP Service Terms March 2004
1. Introduction
1.1 The Problem and the Requirement
Different ISPs and other providers offer a wide variety of products
that are identified as "Internet" or "Internet access". These
products offer different types of functionality and, as a result,
some may be appropriate for certain users and uses and not others.
For example, a service that offers only access to the Web, but that
does not support any other type of Internet services, may be entirely
appropriate for someone who is exclusively interested in browsing and
in web-based email servcies, but not for someone who who requires
access to download files or make more intense use of email. And it
is likely to be even less appropriate for someone who requires the
ability to operate servers for other users, who needs virtual private
network (VPN) capabilities or other secured access to a remote
office, or who needs to synchronize mail for offline use.
This document is a first attempt at establishing some definitions for
these various services. It is hoped that the definitions will evolve
into ones that can be standardized and and adopted widely enough to
be useful to users and consumers.
1.2 Adoption and a Non-pejorative Terminology
The definitions proposed here are clearly of little value if service
providers and vendors are not willing to adopt them. Consequently,
the terms proposed are intended to not be pejorative, despite the
belief of some members of the IETF community that some of these
connectively models are simply "broken" or "not really an Internet
service".
1.3 Next Steps
This document is a first cut. For these definitions to be useful,
considerable input from the IETF community, suggestions for
additional terms, and better definitions will be required. The
document assumes that a single set of terms will be adequate and that
a more complex arrangement --e.g., a matrix or array that contrasts a
service type with address availability, presence or absence of NATs,
etc.-- is not needed. If something more complex _is_ needed, someone
should propose it, although this author is very skeptical about the
possibility of getting acceptance for a complex, multidimensional
scheme.
This version of the document ignores the availability of IPv6
connectivity, both to avoid additional complexity and because IPv6 is
not significant today in the markets for which the document is most
Klensin Expires September 14, 2004 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IP Service Terms March 2004
relevant.
2. Terminology
Terms are listed below more or less in order of ascending (to "full
Internet") capability.
Web connectivity. This service provides connectivity to the web only.
Other services are generally not supported. In particular, there
may be no access to POP3 or IMAP email, encrypted tunnels or other
VPN mechanisms, etc. The addresses used are generally dynamic, and
may not be public. The provider may impose a filtering web proxy
on the connections; that proxy may change and redirect URLs to
other sites than the one originally specified by the user or
embedded link.
Client only, non-public address. This service provides access to the
Internet without support for server or peer to peer functions.
The IP address assigned to the customer will almost always be
dynamic and will not represent public address space. Filtering
web proxies are common with this type of service, but the provider
should indicate whether or not one is present.
Client only, public address. This service provides access to the
Internet without support for server or peer to peer functions.
The IP address assigned to the customer will often be dynamic but
is in public address space. Most VPN and similar connections will
work with this service, although the provider may prohibit the use
of server functions by either legal (contractual) restrictions or
by filtering of incoming connection attempts. Filtering web
proxies are uncommon with this type of service, and the provider
should indicate if one is present. Similarly, while filters on,
e.g., use of remote mail servers are uncommon with this type of
service, they do occur and their presence should be identified to
the user.
Full Internet Connectivity. This service provides the user full
Internet connectivity, with one or more static (or long-lived
dynamic) public addresses assigned to the user. Filtering web
proxies and other restrictions on inbound or outbound ports and
traffic are usually considered incompatible with this type of
service and servers on a connected customer LAN are typically
considered normal.
3. Security Considerations
This document is about terminology, not protocols, and does not raise
any particular security issues. However, if the type of terminology
Klensin Expires September 14, 2004 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IP Service Terms March 2004
that is proposed is widely adopted, it may become easier to identify
security-related expectations of particular hosts, LANs, and types of
connections
4. Acknowledgements
This document was inspired by an email conversation with Vernon
Schryver, Paul Vixie, and Nathaniel Bornstein. While there have been
proposals to produce definitions like the ones above for many years,
that conversation convinced the author that it was finally time to
get a strawman on the table to see if the IETF could actually carry
it forward.
Author's Address
John C Klensin
1770 Massachusetts Ave, #322
Cambridge, MA 02140
USA
Phone: +1 617 491 5735
EMail: john-ietf@jck.com
Klensin Expires September 14, 2004 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IP Service Terms March 2004
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF Documents can
be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Klensin Expires September 14, 2004 [Page 6]
