the NIC?

Tue Oct 5 14:09:09 UTC 1993

>
>Attached is a brief review of what Claudio & I cobbled together.  I don't
>remember if all the comments were added, and conversations today point out
>the need to either restrict the scope to IP (the wording of the current draft
>seems to point to an IP-centric view), or widen the view to support 
>multi-protocol view(s)....:-)
>
>Additional, -CONSTRUCTIVE- comments are welcome.       
>
>
>What is a Internet Provider?
>
>An entity that provides IP service to a customer base, either in a closed 
>environment (no external world view) or open, world connected Internet service.
>At a minimum this would entail a bilateral aggreement with another provider to 
>exchange routing information between the two.  It would also imply that the 

Seems that the above is a sufficient definition.

>instant any bilateral agreement is made, that one of the common points of this 
>agreement is to recognise the IANA for what it is, and agree that the documents
>produced by ISOC standards and published in the offical RFC repositories are 
>the standards by which compliance with an IP network are defined and form the 
>sole basis for arbitration of disputed points. RFC change occurs in the normal
>fashion as identified by the ISOC.

I do not believe that either IANA recognition, nor anything with RFCs,
and certainly nothing whatsoever related to the ISoc has *anything* to
do with whether someone is a service provider or not.

>This does not imply any actual application support between providers.  Areas 
>that may define base level customer service are DNS registration, and some SMTP 
>configuration support. Additional user services for clients are infotools like 
>archie/ftp/gopher/www.  Higher level services like help desk and training
>may be added.

Unimportant to the definition.

>It may be appropriate to require some level of periodic  accounting/checkup for
>all providers by the IANA for numbers allocated to providers. It may also be 
>required that a provider must be refered by an existing provider. 

That's fine, but is not related to a short and crisp service provider
definition.

>This seems to cover the base set of what an Internet provider does and may do.
>Additional requirements may be imposed by other entities that have a controlling
>interest in one or more providers. It seems that a checklist of items that
>when reviewed, are generally positive, indicate that internet provisioning is
>occuring, is a useful tool.

Also not sure why this is necessary and why the definition needs any
wording like imposed, controlling, and such are needed.

May be one way to deal with that is to have a clear/crisp/short
definition. Separate from that could be a suggested document about
suggested guidelines for interactions swith other SPs which could
include some of the rest of Bill's text.

Hans-Werner