[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
BCP38 - Internet Death Penalty
In message <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748FA4E8A0 at CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net>, John Curran writes:
> On Mar 27, 2013, at 10:23 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> > Indeed, but I have an even better example of how that's already done,
> > is probably pertinent.
> > The National Electric Code is assimilated law now, I think, in every
> > state in the US. It is promulgated by the National Fire Protection
> > Association, which is a standards organization originally started by
> > insurors to reduce their exposure and expenses; by professional
> > they have become, effectively, a lawmaking body.
> > So they're not the government, they're subject-matter experts,
> > competent to have opinions, and their opinions are assimilated into
> > controlling law.
> Indeed... a perfect example of industry self-regulation supplemented by
> a mandatory legal framework referencing the best practice documents.
> > Is BCP38 *not* well enough though out even for large and medium sized
> > carriers to adopt as contractual language, ...
> You're back to discussing voluntary mechanisms in the above, but
> your example is a case where compliance is due to legislation at
> both federal and state levels.
> > much less for FCC or someone to
> > impose upon them? If so, we should work on it further.
> Umm... How many North American ISP's/datacenters/web hosting firms were
> aware of the BCP 38 development as it was on-going, and participated in
> some manner in its review? The IETF is a wonderful organization, but it
> is not exactly overflowing with representation from the service provider
> community. Also, given that you really need these practices picked up
> on a global basis, repeat the above question with "Global" rather than
> North American...
I'd say enough were aware. :-)
The North American Network Operators Group (NANOG)  group as a
whole deserves special credit for openly discussing these issues and
actively seeking possible solutions. Also, thanks to Justin Newton
[Priori Networks] and Steve Bielagus [IronBridge Networks]. for
their comments and contributions.
> If you actually want to see certain technical practices made mandatory
> for Internet service providers globally, then you need a development
> process for those practices which fairly robust to insure that the
> practices are equally germane and reasonable to many different service
> providers in many different parts of the world. It's actually relatively
> easy to get governments to require compliance with accepted technical
> practices for the Internet, the problem has been we've never taken the
> effort to produce best practices with sufficient rigor than any given
> government can know that it has the necessary backing (of many of the
> service providers in its domain) needed to actually require compliance.
> (With regard to the FCC, there is some question as to whether or not
> their mandate would allow establishing required practices for ISPs...
> To the extent that VoIP traffic is being carried, this is far more
> likely to be possible, and hence folks should be aware of various
> activities such as the CSRIC "Communications Security, Reliability
> and Interoperability Council", which develops recommendations that
> could effectively become requirements on Internet Service Providers
> in some contexts.
> Noe that the problem with this sort of approach is that having dozens
> of countries all developing their own specific technical best practices
> is most likely to cumulatively interact in ways impossible to comply
> with... Hence, the need for clear global technical best practices,
> through which countries with a particular desire to "improve the
> state of the Internet" can channel their legislative desires...)
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka at isc.org