Subject: AW: [Ecrit] terminology

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 10:50:19 +0200

hi andy, 

we should make sure that the requirements document contains the terms we plan to use in the future. 
as such, we should not introduce terms with a different meaning in another document. 
furthermore, if we think that new terms are needed then we should add them to the requirements document. 

ciao
hannes

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. September 2005 01:28
> An: Tschofenig, Hannes
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Betreff: Re: [Ecrit] terminology
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 13, 2005, at 10:26 AM, Tschofenig, Hannes wrote:
> 
> > hi all,
> >
> > i have a question regarding the terminology used in:
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-newton-ecrit-arch- 
> > conside
> > rations-00.txt
> >
> > the requirements document defines a number of terms. they do not  
> > seem to
> > be sufficient, as it seems. i think it would be useful to fix or to
> > enhance the terms in the requirements document as soon as possible.
> 
> Hannes,
> 
> What was your question?
> 
> -andy
> 

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:05:08 -0400

> add them to the requirements document.

Understood.  I'll talk to James about it.

-andy

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:53:15 -0500

>Understood.  I'll talk to James about it.

I believe we all need to agree on terminology, and use the same in each doc.

The recent confusion (multiple opinions) on ISP vs. IAP and ISP vs. ASP 
tell me we don't agree yet on something fairly fundamental wrt 
architectures - definition of a network.

John used a word that seemed totally clear to me, yet it is not used 
anywhere I know of in this context: "attachment".

Barbara made the point that we need to maintain separate of the L2 provider 
and the L3 provider - and I agree. This used to be legally separated, at 
least in the US due to the L2 provider being regulated - and I'd like 
someone to tell me if this is still true.

My opinion is that the acronym ISP is the one that is most out of place. 
Here's why:

my ISP only gives me IP access the the wide open internet to any IP 
application I have the software to do. This enables Application specific 
(like only voice) SPs to become reachable.

So, perhaps we need to move the traditional term "ISP" to just "Internet 
Provider", as that is all they need to do to qualify - provide Internet 
connectivity.

I like John's "attachment" word to describe physical connectivity, we can 
use the word "link" too.

Thus, the Attachment (or "Link") (radio or wireline) provider is at layer 2

The Internet Provider (no acronym!) is at Layer 3 providing IP addressing 
and a default gateway out to the world via the Internet Protocol, with no 
specific application access or communication.

And the ASP provides application control and enablement of services like 
voice, video, IM, etc

Each of these 3 SHOULD be considered separate organizations UNLESS the user 
is within the bounds of an Enterprise. This latter occurance necessitates 
L2 and L3 to be merged into a single organization, but DOES NOT mean L7 
necessarily is within the Enterprise. As through my VPN to my corporate 
network I have access to an ASP such as Vonage for voice communications.

Thus

Link Provider
Internet Provider
Application (Service) Provider

I think this makes none of the above a subset of any other

How does this sound/read?

>-andy

cheers,
James

                                 *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented.