[1694] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: The WEIS/AUPPERLE letter
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Martin Schoffstall)
Wed Dec 11 10:44:44 1991
In-Reply-To: <9112101549.AA25246@cise.cise.nsf.gov>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 22:38:05 -0400
To: "Stephen Wolff" <steve@ncri.cise.nsf.gov>
Cc: rick@uunet.uu.net, members@farnet.org, regional-techs@merit.edu,
From: "Martin Schoffstall" <schoff@mail.psi.net>
Reply-To: schoff@psi.com
>DATE: Tue, 10 Dec 91 10:47:56 EST
>FROM: Stephen Wolff <steve@ncri.cise.nsf.gov>
>
>That's it; they can't - at least not at the current state of (non)development
>of "policy-based routing"(!) The closest approximation is evidently to
>declare the **network number** to be NSF-conformant or commercial. Yes, I
>do understand that model's seriously broken; the approximation is terrible.
>
So. If we can't arrive at an open technical specification in an open
process such as IETF that could be widely supported by vendors and
providers we:
(1) come up with a "private/secret" one
(2) impose it
(3) turn it's control over to a 3rd party
(4) turn the net over to the 3rd party
You are imposing a combination policy/technical standard, the review and
process are questionable.
While you admit that the approximation is terrible, given that the
initial implementation of this terrible approximation reduces
connectivity. Let's declare it a failure and move on. Given that I
believe you "secretly" contracted this back in 1990 and are stuck...
(got to watch out for those NY lawyers!)
Let's get out of it asap
And not even consider extending this ugliness one day beyond oct92.
Marty
