On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 5/19/2014 10:27 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >> and if you think you are big enough, you can try to outsource the >> problem and dump it on the rest of the network > > > given the amount of confusion in this space, what is a specific example > of anyone "outsourcing" spam on the rest of the network? > > i don't care whether you name names, but you need to cite technical or > operational details that make your assertion assessable. This is the downside of a scheme that does not have a built in settlements scheme. There are no costs applied to resources and so working out how to dump costs onto others is all part of the game for the operators. For example, Comcast vs Netflix, lets imagine they have infinite bandwidth inside their networks, who pays for the network connection that joins them? Somehow the packets have to get from one network to the other and that is not cost free. There is a lot of arguing that goes into framing the question as to who bears what costs. And accusing other parties of 'dumping' is one of them. This does not mean that having built in settlements and accounting is better, just that there are costs to taking them out. One of those costs is that the responsibility for costs is ambiguous. Rather than talk in these terms I think it is better to look at questions such as: * Are the criteria being proposed reciprocal or is someone proposing that the rules be one thing when it suits them and something else at other times * Where does the ability to act lie, who benefits, who bears the costs? So for example in the credit card payments business I have long argued that the US govt. needs to step in and mandate use of chip and PIN because the costs and benefits are not precisely aligned and a global mandate is the only way to move forward.