Re: comments on requirements-05

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Fri, 9 May 2003, Joe Abley wrote:
> On Friday, May 9, 2003, at 12:40 Canada/Eastern, Pekka Savola wrote:
> > I suggest replacing the definitions:
> >
> >    A "transit provider" operates a site which directly provides
> >    connectivity to the Internet to one or more external sites. The
> >    connectivity provided extends beyond the transit provider's own 
> > site.
> >    A transit provider's site is directly connected to the sites for
> >    which it provides transit.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > with:
> >
> >    A "direct Internet services provider" (ISP) provides a physical 
> > connection
> >    and Internet connectivity to the site.  The connectivity extends 
> > beyond
> >    the ISP's own network.
> 
> I don't see the reason for introducing a new term ("direct Internet 
> services provider") which I have never heard used before in preference 
> to one which I hear commonly used, in the exact sense in which it is 
> defined in -05.

Well, "first-hop provider" or "first-hop ISP" could be others.

But still, I think it's *better* to define a new term than redefine a
commonly used one.  That way people do not have prior expectations on what
the term refers to, and even though they would not read the terminology
with great care, it would still point to the right direction.

Even if you my proposition for a new definition is ignored, I think the 
"transit provider" term should be edited to remove stuff about its site.  
I think it would be possible to do so, in a similar fashion as with my 
terms.
 
> > There is nothing to prevent that, if the solution supports it, but IMO
> > it's better if the solution does not require co-operation with further
> > upstream transit providers.
> >
> > Also note that there was another case: Site S interacting with the
> > Internet (ie. with folks it is not directly or indirectly paying money
> > to).  Co-operation must not be required there, I think.
> 
> Since these are goals, and not requirements, I'm not sure it's 
> necessary or desirable (from the point of view of getting a message 
> across) to enumerate every single possible case and permit, require or 
> prohibit each in turn.
> 
> Maybe we could insert a comment like "The impact of any inter-provider 
> cooperation that might be required to facilitate the multi-homing 
> strategy should be examined and assessed from the point of view of 
> operational practicality."

Looks fine (in addition to other clarification on this subject, wrt. 
"transit provider").
 
-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings