Subject: [p2pi] ALL PLEASE READ (Re: For those who think "User Fairness/Cost Fairness" isunacceptable...)

From: "Robb Topolski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 21:45:04 -0700

All,

When the current controversy erupted, it was because the top Cable MSO was
using equipment that tampered with communications between endpoints by
replacing end-point packets with ones designed to tear TCP connections with
the RST flag.  The Standards impact of that practice is rather clear and
nobody suggests that it continue (although this practice continues today).

I've been among the first to call upon Comcast to adopt a standards-based
solution, and barring the availability of any solution that might work for
them, to participate in the IETF body and help to craft one.  Either in
spite of that call or because of it, Comcast is here and is making the
attempt.  They have made great strides.  They are more open than before.
And -- quite appropriately and laudably -- *they've asked for feedback*.

The IETF is concerned with the evolution of the Internet architecture and
the smooth operation of the Internet.  We are a Standards body.  The purpose
of a Standard is interoperability.  The test of a standard is relevance and
quality of the information provided.  The absence of a Standard does not
prohibit a thing, however the presence of a standard does explain how a
thing ought to be done if it is to be done.  We have no lack of standards
addressing the questions of congestion control and prioritization (a large
feature of the new protocol-agnostic method that Comcast is testing).

Jon, we are not here to pass judgment on Comcast.  However, we have been
asked a relevant question about topics in our purview and we should not be
shy about answering it.  Comcast stands to invest a lot of time and money in
transitioning their systems from a less appropriate to a hopefully more
appropriate management method.  They've described it to us.  They're
trialling it.  And they want feedback.

I say, "Speak now, Standards body, or forever hold your peace."  Whether we
like it or not, a non-answer is going to be interpreted as approval. This
time, we have a fair warning, because Comcast is about to spend the time and
money if they like the results of their trial.

I stand by everything that I've said about the Protocol-Agnostic method.  It
takes no particular bravery to do so -- the facts are quite plain. The
problem statement that it attempts to solve is technically insufficient.
>From an interoperability perspective, the solution proposed hurts
innovation, investment, users, and the community as it lacks the detail and
predictability/testability required to be useful.  I do appreciate the
openness shown, and regret not being able to be more positive about it.

Some see me as an advocate. If you do, it's because you've been involved in
policy. I'm a software tester. Network Neutrality to me is not a campaign,
it is simply a side-effect caused by how the Internet was designed to work.
It is neutral because it generally lacks the information to be otherwise. In
May of 2007, I posted what amounts to a "bug report" about my ISP's
network.  And while I do have opinions, "policy advocacy" is not what is
driving me.  Whats more important to me is something that testers call "bug
advocacy." (Please see http://www.google.com/search?q=bug+advocacy for
several good descriptions.) I want to see my bug fixed -- *really *fixed --
not simply replaced with misbehavior just as repugnant as the original.

We're not here to pass judgment on Comcast.  That will be someone else's
job.

But, does Comcast's new protocol-agnostic congestion-management method pass
the muster of the IETF?  It's an engineering question, asked of an
engineering body.  If we're not the right body to pass judgment on *that
question*, then nobody is.  If we fail to object now, when the reasons are
so plain, then why would we expect anybody to ask us ever again?

Thank you

Robb Topolski

-- 
Robb Topolski ([email-masked])
Hillsboro, Oregon USA
http://www.funchords.com/
_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi