Andrew, <div><br></div><div>I support the direction you're moving in.</div><div><br></div><div>Greg<span></span><br><br>On Thursday, November 12, 2015, Andrew Sullivan <<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
I sent an alternative to this in the "whole text" message I just<br>
mailed, but I thought it better to follow up to this specifically in<br>
this thread.<br>
<br>
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 04:05:40PM -0500, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
> - services (i.e., the software processes by which commands received via<br>
> the Internet are processed and a response is generated and<br>
> transmitted via<br>
> the Internet, to be viewed in a web browser, email client, or the like)<br>
> which use the Internet’s unique identifiers, or<br>
<br>
That can't be the definition of services, I think. First, I'm not<br>
entirely sure that we want to say "receives commands": DNS, for<br>
instance, is a completely bilateral protocol that just sends messages<br>
back and forth. The messages are the same format in "command" (query)<br>
and response, differeing technically only in the setting of a bit. I<br>
_could_ make an argument that these are commands, but I don't think we<br>
want anything that tenuous. In general, not all services are<br>
client-server. Second, not all responses are to be viewed: some are<br>
machine to machine (so nobody views them) and some are non-visual (SIP<br>
calls, for instance). Third, not all Internet services are<br>
connnection-oriented: UDP datagrams, for instance, are connectionless.<br>
Finally, for a given service and a given inbound datagram, response<br>
datagrams might or might not be generated depending on various local<br>
policies. It's problems like this that make people avoid trying to<br>
define too precisely.<br>
<br>
It does seem that a service on the Internet is something that accepts<br>
datagrams, when those datagrams are not necessarily the result of<br>
datagrams sent by the same thing. Therefore, I _think_ this will<br>
work:<br>
<br>
services (i.e., any software process that accepts datagrams from<br>
the Internet, when those datagrams are not themselves necessarily<br>
the consequence of a datagram previously sent by the software<br>
process itself) that use the Internet’s unique identifiers<br>
<br>
I'm not absolutely sure this is right, but I think it might be close<br>
enough. The problem with it, of course, is that every single thing<br>
connected to the Internet uses at least one of the Internet's unique<br>
identifiers (this problem is, remember, part of what alarmed the IAB<br>
in the first place). So this basically says, "Any software process<br>
that accepts datagrams from the Internet," and that very nearly boils<br>
down to, "A program with a socket open to the Internet." If that's<br>
ok, I guess I can live with it, though it'd be good to get some more<br>
technically-clueful (or even, some would argue, "at least one pair<br>
of") eyes on this.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
A<br>
<br>
--<br>
Andrew Sullivan<br>
<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'ajs@anvilwalrusden.com')">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org')">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</blockquote></div>