Scott W Brim <sbrim@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > The metaphor I'm trying to use this week is that the IETF is > landscapers and we provide a fertile, beautiful area for people to go > wild and create excellent gardens. Exactly. The beauty of TCP/IP (and indeed many protocols when done well) is that they are generic enablers for additional higher-level uses. TCP/IP creates opportunity for innovation, and does so in a way that is generally safe for the network. In the case of BitTorrent, it runs on top of TCP. It is silly to assume/expect all application protocols to be developed in the IETF. It is true that BitTorrent (or more precisely its heavy use) creates interesting dynamics that have implications for the net and maybe even the IETF. For example, BitTorrent creates an environment in which end users start running "background" jobs that run for hours and suck up idle background network capacity. I've heard ISPs use figures of 30% or more of their capacity.... This is Just Fine at one level, but also upsets some business models. Wouldn't it be nice if BitTorrent traffic (at least in some cases) could be labeled as "background" traffic so that ISPs had the ability to better prioritize or figure out when it is critical to add more bandwidth vs. "just nice to have"? Maybe more work here for diffserv? Thomas _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf