rfc8890v1.txt   rfc8890.txt 
skipping to change at line 14 skipping to change at line 14
Category: Informational Category: Informational
ISSN: 2070-1721 ISSN: 2070-1721
The Internet is for End Users The Internet is for End Users
Abstract Abstract
This document explains why the IAB believes that, when there is a This document explains why the IAB believes that, when there is a
conflict between the interests of end users of the Internet and other conflict between the interests of end users of the Internet and other
parties, IETF decisions should favor end users. It also explores how parties, IETF decisions should favor end users. It also explores how
this can more effectively be achieved. the IETF can more effectively achieve this.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes. published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to
provide for permanent record. It represents the consensus of the provide for permanent record. It represents the consensus of the
Internet Architecture Board (IAB). Documents approved for Internet Architecture Board (IAB). Documents approved for
skipping to change at line 58 skipping to change at line 58
3. Why the IETF Should Prioritize End Users 3. Why the IETF Should Prioritize End Users
4. How the IETF Can Prioritize End Users 4. How the IETF Can Prioritize End Users
4.1. Engaging the Internet Community 4.1. Engaging the Internet Community
4.2. Creating User-Focused Systems 4.2. Creating User-Focused Systems
4.3. Identifying Negative End-User Impact 4.3. Identifying Negative End-User Impact
4.4. Handling Conflicting End-User Needs 4.4. Handling Conflicting End-User Needs
4.5. Deprioritizing Internal Needs 4.5. Deprioritizing Internal Needs
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
7. Informative References 7. Informative References
IAB Members at the Time of Approval
Acknowledgements Acknowledgements
Author's Address Author's Address
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Many who participate in the IETF are most comfortable making what we Many who participate in the IETF are most comfortable making what we
believe to be purely technical decisions; our process is defined to believe to be purely technical decisions; our process favors
favor technical merit through our well-known mantra of "rough technical merit through our well-known mantra of "rough consensus and
consensus and running code." running code."
Nevertheless, the running code that results from our process (when Nevertheless, the running code that results from our process (when
things work well) inevitably has an impact beyond technical things work well) inevitably has an impact beyond technical
considerations, because the underlying decisions afford some uses considerations, because the underlying decisions afford some uses
while discouraging others. While we believe we are making only while discouraging others. While we believe we are making only
technical decisions, in reality, we are defining (in some degree) technical decisions, in reality, we are defining (in some degree)
what is possible on the Internet itself. what is possible on the Internet itself.
This impact has become significant. As the Internet increasingly This impact has become significant. As the Internet increasingly
mediates essential functions in societies, it has unavoidably become mediates essential functions in societies, it has unavoidably become
skipping to change at line 92 skipping to change at line 93
All of this raises the question: For whom do we go through the pain All of this raises the question: For whom do we go through the pain
of gathering rough consensus and writing running code? of gathering rough consensus and writing running code?
After all, there are a variety of parties that standards can benefit, After all, there are a variety of parties that standards can benefit,
such as (but not limited to) end users, network operators, schools, such as (but not limited to) end users, network operators, schools,
equipment vendors, specification authors, specification implementers, equipment vendors, specification authors, specification implementers,
content owners, governments, nongovernmental organizations, social content owners, governments, nongovernmental organizations, social
movements, employers, and parents. movements, employers, and parents.
Successful specifications will provide some benefit to all of the Successful specifications will provide some benefit to all the
relevant parties because standards do not represent a zero-sum game. relevant parties because standards do not represent a zero-sum game.
However, there are sometimes situations where there is a conflict However, there are sometimes situations where there is a conflict
between the needs of two (or more) parties. between the needs of two (or more) parties.
In these situations, when one of those parties is an "end user" of In these situations, when one of those parties is an "end user" of
the Internet -- for example, a person using a web browser, mail the Internet -- for example, a person using a web browser, mail
client, or another agent that connects to the Internet -- the client, or another agent that connects to the Internet -- the
Internet Architecture Board argues that the IETF should favor their Internet Architecture Board argues that the IETF should favor their
interests over those of other parties. interests over those of other parties.
Section 2 explains what is meant by "end users", Section 3 outlines Section 2 explains what is meant by "end users", Section 3 outlines
why IETF work should prioritize them, and Section 4 describes how we why IETF work should prioritize them, and Section 4 describes how we
can do that. can do that.
2. Who Are "End Users"? 2. Who Are "End Users"?
In this document, "end users" means human users whose activities IETF In this document, "end users" means human users whose activities IETF
standards as a whole are designed to support, sometimes indirectly. standards support, sometimes indirectly. Thus, the end user of a
Thus, the end user of a protocol to manage routers is not a router protocol to manage routers is not a router administrator; it is the
administrator; it is the people using the network that the router people using the network that the router operates within.
operates within.
End users are not necessarily a homogenous group; they might have End users are not necessarily a homogenous group; they might have
different views of how the Internet should work and might occupy different views of how the Internet should work and might occupy
several roles, such as a seller, buyer, publisher, reader, service several roles, such as a seller, buyer, publisher, reader, service
provider, and consumer. An end user might be browsing the Web, provider, and consumer. An end user might browse the Web, monitor
monitoring remote equipment, playing a game, videoconferencing with remote equipment, play a game, videoconference with colleagues, send
colleagues, sending messages to friends, or performing an operation messages to friends, or perform an operation in a remote surgery
in a remote surgery theater. They might be "at the keyboard" or theater. They might be "at the keyboard" or represented by software
represented by software indirectly (e.g., as a daemon). indirectly (e.g., as a daemon).
Likewise, an individual end user might have many interests (e.g., Likewise, an individual end user might have many interests (e.g.,
privacy, security, flexibility, reachability) that are sometimes in privacy, security, flexibility, reachability) that are sometimes in
tension. tension.
A person whose interests we need to consider might not directly be A person whose interests we need to consider might not directly be
using a specific system connected to the Internet. For example, if a using a specific system connected to the Internet. For example, if a
child is using a browser, the interests of that child's parents or child is using a browser, the interests of that child's parents or
guardians may be relevant. A person pictured in a photograph may guardians may be relevant. A person pictured in a photograph may
have an interest in systems that process that photograph; a person have an interest in systems that process that photograph; a person
skipping to change at line 170 skipping to change at line 170
| The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF. We | The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF. We
| want the Internet to be useful for communities that share our | want the Internet to be useful for communities that share our
| commitment to openness and fairness. We embrace technical | commitment to openness and fairness. We embrace technical
| concepts such as decentralized control, edge-user empowerment and | concepts such as decentralized control, edge-user empowerment and
| sharing of resources, because those concepts resonate with the | sharing of resources, because those concepts resonate with the
| core values of the IETF community. These concepts have little to | core values of the IETF community. These concepts have little to
| do with the technology that's possible, and much to do with the | do with the technology that's possible, and much to do with the
| technology that we choose to create. | technology that we choose to create.
In other words, the IETF is concerned with developing and maintaining In other words, the IETF develops and maintains the Internet to
the Internet to promote the social good. The society that the IETF promote the social good. The society that the IETF is attempting to
is attempting to enhance is composed of end users, along with groups enhance is composed of end users, along with groups of them forming
of them forming businesses, governments, clubs, civil society businesses, governments, clubs, civil society organizations, and
organizations, and other institutions. other institutions.
Merely advancing the measurable success of the Internet (e.g., Merely advancing the measurable success of the Internet (e.g.,
deployment size, bandwidth, latency, number of users) is not an deployment size, bandwidth, latency, number of users) is not an
adequate goal; doing so ignores how technology is so often used as a adequate goal; doing so ignores how technology is so often used as a
lever to assert power over users, rather than empower them. lever to assert power over users, rather than empower them.
Beyond fulfilling the IETF's mission, prioritizing end users can also Beyond fulfilling the IETF's mission, prioritizing end users can also
help to ensure the long-term health of the Internet and the IETF's help to ensure the long-term health of the Internet and the IETF's
relevance to it. Perceptions of capture by vendors or other relevance to it. Perceptions of capture by vendors or other
providers harm both; the IETF's work will (deservedly) lose end providers harm both; the IETF's work will (deservedly) lose end
skipping to change at line 196 skipping to change at line 196
others' interests over them. others' interests over them.
Ultimately, the Internet will succeed or fail based upon the actions Ultimately, the Internet will succeed or fail based upon the actions
of its end users, because they are the driving force behind its of its end users, because they are the driving force behind its
growth to date. Not prioritizing them jeopardizes the network effect growth to date. Not prioritizing them jeopardizes the network effect
that the Internet relies upon to provide so much value. that the Internet relies upon to provide so much value.
4. How the IETF Can Prioritize End Users 4. How the IETF Can Prioritize End Users
There are a few ways that the IAB believes the IETF community can There are a few ways that the IAB believes the IETF community can
prioritize end users, based upon our observations. By its nature, prioritize end users, based upon our observations. This is not a
this is not a complete list. complete list.
4.1. Engaging the Internet Community 4.1. Engaging the Internet Community
The IETF community does not have any unique insight into what is The IETF community does not have any unique insight into what is
"good for end users", and it is not uncommon for us to be at a "good for end users", and it is not uncommon for us to be at a
further disadvantage because of our close understanding of some -- further disadvantage because of our close understanding of some --
but not all -- aspects of the Internet. but not all -- aspects of the Internet.
At the same time, we do have a culture of considerable deference to a At the same time, we have a culture of considerable deference to a
broader "Internet community" -- roughly what this document calls end broader "Internet community" -- roughly what this document calls end
users -- in our decision-making processes. Mere deference, however, users -- in our decision-making processes. Mere deference, however,
is not adequate; even with the best intentions, we cannot assume that is not adequate; even with the best intentions, we cannot assume that
our experiences of the Internet are those of all of its end users or our experiences of the Internet are those of all of its end users or
that our decisions have a positive impact upon them. that our decisions have a positive impact upon them.
Therefore, we have not only a responsibility to analyze and consider Therefore, we have not only a responsibility to analyze and consider
the impacts of the IETF's work but also a responsibility to consult the impacts of the IETF's work, but also a responsibility to consult
with that greater Internet community. In particular, we should do so with that greater Internet community. In particular, we should do so
when one of our decisions has potential impact upon end users. when one of our decisions has a potential impact upon end users.
The IETF community faces significant hurdles in doing so. Our work The IETF community faces significant hurdles in doing so. Our work
is specialized and often esoteric, and processes for developing is specialized and often esoteric, and processes for developing
standards often involve very long timescales. Affected parties are standards often involve very long timescales. Affected parties are
rarely technical experts, and their experience of the Internet is rarely technical experts, and they often base their understanding of
often based upon incomplete (and sometimes inaccurate) models. the Internet upon incomplete (and sometimes inaccurate) models.
Often, even when we try to engage a broader audience, their Often, even when we try to engage a broader audience, their
participation is minimal -- until a change affects someone in a way participation is minimal -- until a change affects someone in a way
they don't like. Surprising the Internet community is rarely a good they don't like. Surprising the Internet community is rarely a good
outcome. outcome.
Government-sponsored individuals sometimes participate in the IETF Government-sponsored individuals sometimes participate in the IETF
community. While this is welcome, it should not be taken as community. While this is welcome, it should not be taken as
automatically representative of end users elsewhere, or even all end automatically representative of end users elsewhere, or even all end
users in the relevant jurisdiction. Furthermore, what is desirable users in the relevant jurisdiction. Furthermore, what is desirable
in one jurisdiction (or at least to its administrators) might be in one jurisdiction (or at least to its administrators) might be
detrimental in others (see Section 4.4). detrimental in others (see Section 4.4).
While some civil society organizations specialize in technology and While some civil society organizations specialize in technology and
Internet policy, they typically do not have the capacity to Internet policy, they rarely can participate broadly, nor are they
participate broadly, nor are they necessarily representative of the necessarily representative of the larger Internet community.
larger Internet community. Nevertheless, their understanding of end- Nevertheless, their understanding of end-user needs is often
user needs is often profound, and they are in many ways the best- profound, and they are in many ways the best-informed advocates for
informed advocates for end-user concerns; they should be considered a end-user concerns; they should be considered a primary channel for
primary channel for engaging the broader Internet community. engaging the broader Internet community.
A promising approach to help fill these gaps is to identify and A promising approach to help fill these gaps is to identify and
engage with specifically affected communities when making decisions engage with specifically affected communities when making decisions
that might affect them, for example, one or more industry that might affect them, for example, one or more industry
associations, user groups, or a set of individuals, though we can't associations, user groups, or a set of individuals, though we can't
of course formally ensure that they are appropriately representative. formally ensure that they are appropriately representative.
In doing so, we should not require them to "come to us"; unless a In doing so, we should not require them to "come to us"; unless a
stakeholder community is already engaged in the IETF process stakeholder community is already engaged in the IETF process
effectively, the IETF community should explore how to meet with them effectively, the IETF community should explore how to meet with them
on their terms -- take the initiative to contact them, explain our on their terms -- take the initiative to contact them, explain our
work, and solicit their feedback. work, and solicit their feedback.
In particular, while IAB workshops, BOFs, and Bar BOFs can be an In particular, while IAB workshops, BOFs, and Bar BOFs can be an
effective mechanism to gather input within our community, they often effective mechanism to gather input within our community, they rarely
do not have the visibility in other communities that is required to have the visibility into other communities that is required to
solicit input, much less effective participation. solicit input, much less effective participation.
Instead, an event like a workshop may be more effective if co-located Instead, an event like a workshop may be more effective if co-located
with -- and ideally hosted or co-hosted by -- a forum that's familiar with -- and ideally hosted or co-hosted by -- a forum that's familiar
to that stakeholder community. We should also take the opportunity to that stakeholder community. We should also raise the visibility
to raise the visibility of IETF work (or potential IETF work) in such of IETF work (or potential IETF work) in such fora through conference
fora through conference talks, panels, newsletter articles, etc. talks, panels, newsletter articles, etc.
For example, the IAB held the ESCAPE workshop [RFC8752] to solicit For example, the IAB ESCAPE workshop [RFC8752] solicited input from
input from Internet publishers and advertisers that might be affected Internet publishers and advertisers about a proposal that might
by a proposal for new work in the IETF. While the workshop was affect them. While the workshop was considered successful,
considered successful, participation might have been improved by participation might have been improved by identifying an appropriate
identifying an appropriate industry forum and working with them to industry forum and working with them to host the event.
host the event.
When we engage with the Internet community, we should also clearly When we engage with the Internet community, we should also clearly
identify tailored feedback mechanisms (e.g., subscribing to a mailing identify tailored feedback mechanisms (e.g., subscribing to a mailing
list may not be appropriate) and assure that they are well known in list may not be appropriate) and assure that they are well known in
those communities. those communities.
The Internet Society can be an invaluable partner in these efforts; The Internet Society can be an invaluable partner in these efforts;
their focus on the Internet community, policy expertise, and their focus on the Internet community, policy expertise, and
resources can help to facilitate discussions with the appropriate resources can help to facilitate discussions with the appropriate
parties. parties.
Finally, we should remember that the RFC Series are Requests For Finally, we should remember that the RFC Series contains Requests For
Comments; if there are serious implications of our work, we should Comments; if there are serious implications of our work, we should
document them and ask for feedback from the Internet community. document them and ask for feedback from the Internet community.
4.2. Creating User-Focused Systems 4.2. Creating User-Focused Systems
We should pay particular attention to the kinds of architectures we We should pay particular attention to the kinds of architectures we
create and whether they encourage or discourage an Internet that create and whether they encourage or discourage an Internet that
works for end users. works for end users.
For example, one of the most successful Internet applications is the For example, one of the most successful Internet applications is the
Web, which uses the HTTP application protocol. One of HTTP's key Web, which uses the HTTP application protocol. One of HTTP's key
implementation roles is that of the web browser -- called the "user implementation roles is that of the web browser -- called the "user
agent" in [RFC7230] and other specifications. agent" in [RFC7230] and other specifications.
User agents act as intermediaries between a service and the end user; User agents act as intermediaries between a service and the end user;
rather than downloading an executable program from a service that has rather than downloading an executable program from a service that has
arbitrary access into the users' system, the user agent only allows arbitrary access into the users' system, the user agent only allows
limited access to display content and run code in a sandboxed limited access to display content and run code in a sandboxed
environment. Of course, end users are diverse and the ability of a environment. End users are diverse and the ability of a few user
limited number of user agents to properly represent individual agents to represent individual interests properly is imperfect, but
interests is imperfect, but this arrangement is an improvement over this arrangement is an improvement over the alternative -- the need
the alternative -- the need to completely trust a website with all to trust a website completely with all information on your system to
information on your system to browse it. browse it.
Defining the user agent role in standards also creates a virtuous Defining the user agent role in standards also creates a virtuous
cycle; it allows multiple implementations, thereby allowing end users cycle; it allows multiple implementations, allowing end users to
to switch between them with relatively low costs (although there are switch between them with relatively low costs (although there are
concerns about the complexity of the Web creating barriers to entry concerns about the complexity of the Web creating barriers to entry
for new implementations). This creates an incentive for implementers for new implementations). This creates an incentive for implementers
to carefully consider the users' needs, which often are reflected to consider the users' needs carefully, which are often reflected
back into the defining standards. The resulting ecosystem has many into the defining standards. The resulting ecosystem has many
remaining problems, but a distinguished user agent role provides an remaining problems, but a distinguished user agent role provides an
opportunity to improve it. opportunity to improve it.
In contrast, the Internet of Things (IoT) has not yet seen the broad In contrast, the Internet of Things (IoT) has not yet seen the broad
adoption of a similar role; many current systems require opaque, adoption of a similar role; many current systems require opaque,
vendor-specific software or hardware for the user-facing component. vendor-specific software or hardware for the user-facing component.
Perhaps as a result of this, that ecosystem and its end users face Perhaps as a result of this, that ecosystem and its end users face
serious challenges. serious challenges.
4.3. Identifying Negative End-User Impact 4.3. Identifying Negative End-User Impact
At its best, our work will unambiguously build a better human At its best, our work will unambiguously build a better human
society. In some cases, we will consciously decide to be neutral and society. Sometimes, we will consciously be neutral and open-ended,
open-ended, allowing the "tussle" among stakeholders to produce a allowing the "tussle" among stakeholders to produce a range of
range of results (see [TUSSLE] for further discussion). results (see [TUSSLE] for further discussion).
At the very least, however, we must examine our work for negative At the very least, however, we must examine our work for negative
impact on end users and take steps to mitigate it where encountered. impact on end users and take steps to mitigate it where encountered.
In particular, when we've identified a conflict between the interests In particular, when we've identified a conflict between the interests
of end users and other stakeholders, we should err on the side of of end users and other stakeholders, we should err on the side of
protecting end users. protecting end users.
Note that "negative impact on end users" is not defined in this Note that "negative impact on end users" is not defined in this
document; that is something that the relevant body (e.g., working document; that is something that the relevant body (e.g., working
group) needs to discuss and come to consensus on. Merely asserting group) needs to discuss and come to consensus on. Merely asserting
that something is harmful is not adequate. The converse is also that something is harmful is not adequate. The converse is also
true, though; it's not good practice to avoid identifying harms nor true, though; it's not good practice to avoid identifying harms, nor
is it acceptable to ignore them when brought to our attention. is it acceptable to ignore them when brought to our attention.
The IAB and IETF have already established a body of guidance for The IAB and IETF have already established a body of guidance for
situations where this sort of conflict is common, including (but not situations where this conflict is common, including (but not limited
limited to) [RFC7754] on filtering, [RFC7258] and [RFC7624] on to) [RFC7754] on filtering, [RFC7258] and [RFC7624] on pervasive
pervasive surveillance, [RFC7288] on host firewalls, and [RFC6973] surveillance, [RFC7288] on host firewalls, and [RFC6973] regarding
regarding privacy considerations. privacy considerations.
Much of that advice has focused on maintaining the end-to-end Much of that advice has focused on maintaining the end-to-end
properties of a connection [RFC3724]. This does not mean that our properties of a connection [RFC3724]. This does not mean that our
responsibility to end users stops there; decisions might affect them responsibility to end users stops there; decisions might affect them
in other ways. For example, data collection by various applications in other ways. For example, data collection by various applications
even inside otherwise secure connections is a major problem on the even inside otherwise secure connections is a major problem on the
Internet today. Also, inappropriate concentration of power on the Internet today. Also, inappropriate concentration of power on the
Internet has become a concerning phenomenon -- one that protocol Internet has become a concerning phenomenon -- one that protocol
design might have some influence upon. design might have some influence upon.
4.4. Handling Conflicting End-User Needs 4.4. Handling Conflicting End-User Needs
When the needs of different end users conflict (for example, two sets When the needs of different end users conflict (for example, two sets
of end users both have reasonable desires), we again should try to of end users both have reasonable desires), we again should try to
minimize negative impact. minimize negative impact.
For example, when a decision improves the Internet for end users in For example, when a decision improves the Internet for end users in
one jurisdiction, but at the cost of potential harm to others one jurisdiction, but at the cost of potential harm to others
elsewhere, that is not a good trade-off. As such, we effectively elsewhere, that is not a good trade-off. As such, we design the
design the Internet for the pessimal environment; if a user can be Internet for the pessimal environment; if a user can be harmed, they
harmed, they probably will be, somewhere. probably will be, somewhere.
There may be cases where genuine technical need requires compromise. There may be cases where genuine technical need requires compromise.
However, such trade-offs are carefully examined and avoided when However, such trade-offs are carefully examined and avoided when
there are alternate means of achieving the desired goals. If they there are alternate means of achieving the desired goals. If they
cannot be, these choices and reasoning ought to be thoroughly cannot be, these choices and reasoning ought to be thoroughly
documented. documented.
4.5. Deprioritizing Internal Needs 4.5. Deprioritizing Internal Needs
There are a number of needs that are very visible to us as There are several needs that are very visible to us as specification
specification authors but should explicitly not be prioritized over authors but should explicitly not be prioritized over the needs of
the needs of end users. end users.
These include convenience for document editors, IETF process matters, These include convenience for document editors, IETF process matters,
and "architectural purity" for its own sake. and "architectural purity" for its own sake.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions. This document has no IANA actions.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
skipping to change at line 454 skipping to change at line 453
and the Publisher Ecosystem (ESCAPE)", RFC 8752, and the Publisher Ecosystem (ESCAPE)", RFC 8752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8752, March 2020, DOI 10.17487/RFC8752, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8752>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8752>.
[TUSSLE] Clark, D., Sollins, K., Wroclawski, J., and R. Braden, [TUSSLE] Clark, D., Sollins, K., Wroclawski, J., and R. Braden,
"Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow's Internet", "Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow's Internet",
DOI 10.1145/633025.633059, August 2002, DOI 10.1145/633025.633059, August 2002,
<https://groups.csail.mit.edu/ana/Publications/PubPDFs/ <https://groups.csail.mit.edu/ana/Publications/PubPDFs/
Tussle2002.pdf>. Tussle2002.pdf>.
IAB Members at the Time of Approval
Internet Architecture Board members at the time this document was
approved for publication were:
Jari Arkko
Alissa Cooper
Stephen Farrell
Wes Hardaker
Ted Hardie
Christian Huitema
Zhenbin Li
Erik Nordmark
Mark Nottingham
Melinda Shore
Jeff Tantsura
Martin Thomson
Brian Trammell
Acknowledgements Acknowledgements
This document was influenced by many discussions, both inside and Many discussions influenced this document, both inside and outside of
outside of the IETF and IAB. In particular, Edward Snowden's the IETF and IAB. In particular, Edward Snowden's comments regarding
comments regarding the priority of end users at IETF 93 and the HTML5 the priority of end users at IETF 93 and the HTML5 Priority of
Priority of Constituencies were both influential. Constituencies were both influential.
Many people gave feedback and input, including Harald Alvestrand, Many people gave feedback and input, including Harald Alvestrand,
Mohamed Boucadair, Stephen Farrell, Joe Hildebrand, Lee Howard, Russ Mohamed Boucadair, Joe Hildebrand, Lee Howard, Russ Housley, Niels
Housley, Niels ten Oever, Mando Rachovitsa, Martin Thomson, Brian ten Oever, Mando Rachovitsa, John Klensin, and Eliot Lear.
Trammell, John Klensin, Eliot Lear, Ted Hardie, and Jari Arkko.
Author's Address Author's Address
Mark Nottingham Mark Nottingham
Prahran VIC
Australia
Email: mnot@mnot.net Email: mnot@mnot.net
URI: https://www.mnot.net/ URI: https://www.mnot.net/
 End of changes. 30 change blocks. 
75 lines changed or deleted 94 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/