Network Working Group J. Klensin Internet-Draft May 23, 2004 Expires: November 21, 2004 Terminology for Describing Internet Connectivity draft-klensin-ip-service-terms-01.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 21, 2004. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Abstract As the Internet has evolved, many types of arrangements have been advertised and sold as "Internet connectivity". Because these may differ significantly in the capabilities they offer, the range of options, and the lack of any standard terminology, has cause considerable consumer confusion. This document provides a list of terms and definitions that may be helpful to providers, consumers, and, potentially, regulators in clarifying the type and character of services being offered. Klensin Expires November 21, 2004 [Page 1] Internet-Draft IP Service Terms May 2004 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1 The Problem and the Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2 Adoption and a Non-pejorative Terminology . . . . . . . . 3 1.3 Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 7 Klensin Expires November 21, 2004 [Page 2] Internet-Draft IP Service Terms May 2004 1. Introduction 1.1 The Problem and the Requirement Different ISPs and other providers offer a wide variety of products that are identified as "Internet" or "Internet access". These products offer different types of functionality and, as a result, some may be appropriate for certain users and uses and not others. For example, a service that offers only access to the Web, but that does not support any other type of Internet services, may be entirely appropriate for someone who is exclusively interested in browsing and in web-based email services, but not for someone who requires access to download files or make more intense use of email. And it is likely to be even less appropriate for someone who requires the ability to operate servers for other users, who needs virtual private network (VPN) capabilities or other secured access to a remote office, or who needs to synchronize mail for offline use. Of course, the document describes only the functions provided or permitted by the service provider. It does not, and cannot, specify the functions that pass through and are supported by various user-provided equipment. This document is a first attempt at establishing some definitions for these various services. It is hoped that the definitions will evolve into ones that can be standardized and adopted widely enough to be useful to users and consumers. 1.2 Adoption and a Non-pejorative Terminology The definitions proposed here are clearly of little value if service providers and vendors are not willing to adopt them. Consequently, the terms proposed are intended to not be pejorative, despite the belief of some members of the IETF community that some of these connectively models are simply "broken" or "not really an Internet service". 1.3 Next Steps [[This subsection is to be dropped or moved (presumably in modified form) to an appendix before final publication.]] This document is a first cut. For these definitions to be useful, considerable input from the IETF community, suggestions for additional terms, and better definitions will be required. The document assumes that a single set of terms will be adequate and that a more complex arrangement --e.g., a matrix or array that contrasts a service type with address availability, presence or absence of NATs, Klensin Expires November 21, 2004 [Page 3] Internet-Draft IP Service Terms May 2004 etc.-- is not needed. If something more complex _is_ needed, someone should propose it, although this author is very skeptical about the possibility of getting acceptance for a complex, multidimensional scheme. Comments on the initial draft of this document suggest that the observation above bears repeating and some expansion. It is easy to come up with cases which the terms suggested do not provide adequate differentiation. Some ISPs try to block VPNs in conjunction with their "client only" services, others do not. In some parts of the world, interception and reinterpretation of DNS queries is common, in others it is quite rare. Those factors, and others, suggest that the simple list below could easily be expanded into a matrix or multidimensional array of features. That type of list might be useful for people writing commercial procurement specifications, but it would not be useful for the "what is being advertised and what are you likely to get" goal of this document. For this specification, anything more complex than a simple list is almost certain to be unusable. Specifically, the following distinctions have been suggested, but have so far been resisted by the author as adding excessive complication. They are listed both for further consideration and to illustrate how easily things can become complicated. Input from the community is, of course, desired. Version support. The service should declare that it includes IPv4 support only, both IPv4 and IPv6 support, or IPv6 support only. Authentication support. The service should declare which technical mechanism(s) it uses to establish and possibly authenticate connections - such as unauthenticated DHCP, PPP, RADIUS, HTTP interception... VPNs and Tunnels. Is IPSec blocked or permitted? Are other tunneling techniques at the IP layer or below, such as L2TP, permitted? Is there any attempt to block applications-layer tunnel mechanisms such as SSH? DNS support. Are users required to utilize DNS servers provided by the service provider, or are DNS queries permitted to reach arbitrary servers? IP-related services. Are ICMP messages to and from end user sites generally blocked or permitted? Are specific functions such as ping and traceroute blocked and, if so, at what point in the network? Roaming support. The service should declare whether or not it supports IP roaming. And, for "broadband" connections, whether some dialup arrangement is supported for either backup or customer travel and whether that arrangement has full access to mailboxes, etc. Klensin Expires November 21, 2004 [Page 4] Internet-Draft IP Service Terms May 2004 Applications services. The service should identify whether it provides email services and/or web hosting, and on what basis. An email services listing should identify whether POP3, IMAP, or web access are provided and in what combinations and what types of authentication and privacy services are supported or required for each. Is FTP PASV supported or blocked? Filtering. The service should declare whether it provides filtering or protection against worms or denial of service attacks against its customers, virus and UCE filtering for its mail services (if any), non-discretionary or "parental control" filtering of content, and so on. Wiretapping and interception. The service should indicate whether traffic passing through it is subject to lawful intercept with or without notice? Is traffic data stored for possible use by law enforcement with or without notice? 2. Terminology Terms are listed below more or less in order of ascending (to "full Internet") capability. In each case, the terminology refers to the intent of the provider (ISP) as expressed in either technical measures or terms and conditions of service. It may be possible to do some additional things with particular implementations of these characteristic connectivity types, but those flexibilities are generally not the intent of the provider and are unlikely to be supported if the workarounds stop working. Web connectivity. This service provides connectivity to the web only. Other services are generally not supported. In particular, there may be no access to POP3 or IMAP email, encrypted tunnels or other VPN mechanisms, etc. The addresses used are generally dynamic, and may not be public. The provider may impose a filtering web proxy on the connections; that proxy may change and redirect URLs to other sites than the one originally specified by the user or embedded link. Client only, non-public address. This service provides access to the Internet without support for server or most peer to peer functions. The IP address assigned to the customer will almost always be dynamic and will not represent public address space. Filtering web proxies are common with this type of service, but the provider should indicate whether or not one is present. Client only, public address. This service provides access to the Internet without support for server or most peer to peer functions. The IP address assigned to the customer will often be dynamic but is in public address space. Most VPN and similar connections will work with this service, although the provider may Klensin Expires November 21, 2004 [Page 5] Internet-Draft IP Service Terms May 2004 prohibit the use of server functions by either legal (contractual) restrictions or by filtering of incoming connection attempts. Filtering web proxies are uncommon with this type of service, and the provider should indicate if one is present. Similarly, while filters on, e.g., use of remote mail servers, are uncommon with this type of service, they do occur and their presence should be identified to the user. Full Internet Connectivity. This service provides the user full Internet connectivity, with one or more static (or long-lived dynamic) public addresses assigned to the user. Filtering web proxies and other restrictions on inbound or outbound ports and traffic are usually considered incompatible with this type of service and servers on a connected customer LAN are typically considered normal. 3. Security Considerations This document is about terminology, not protocols, and does not raise any particular security issues. However, if the type of terminology that is proposed is widely adopted, it may become easier to identify security-related expectations of particular hosts, LANs, and types of connections 4. Acknowledgements This document was inspired by an email conversation with Vernon Schryver, Paul Vixie, and Nathaniel Bornstein. While there have been proposals to produce definitions like the ones above for many years, that conversation convinced the author that it was finally time to get a strawman on the table to see if the IETF could actually carry it forward. Harald Alvestrand, Brian Carpenter, George Michaelson, Vernon Schryver, and others made several suggestions on the initial draft that resulted in clarifications to the second one. Author's Address John C Klensin 1770 Massachusetts Ave, #322 Cambridge, MA 02140 USA Phone: +1 617 491 5735 EMail: john-ietf@jck.com Klensin Expires November 21, 2004 [Page 6] Internet-Draft IP Service Terms May 2004 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Klensin Expires November 21, 2004 [Page 7]