> This is basic. I am not discussing that, but motivation and > quality of the expected deliveries. I think you mis-understand the point I am maching. I do not propose that the IEFT attempt to form the type of political relationships that you rightly state will be needed. Such relationships are established in an organic fashion. Instead I am saying that the technology must be designed to provide the types information required for the accountability mechanism to function. The difference in approach is seen in the design of BGP security schemes. If you take the traditional access control approach you attempt to design a system that prevents injection of bad information. If you take the accountability approach you accept the possibility that a bad route will be injected in return for reducing the cost of maintenance and deployment. The objective is not to preclude injection of bad information but to allow identification of the party responsible. This approach is a lot more practical when one of the real world constraints that you deal with in the Internetwork is the reluctance of the carriers to take steps that would reveal details of their internal network structure to third parties - regardless of whether their network is already visible in this fashion. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf