-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
- --On Wednesday, December 04, 2002 18:57:27 +0100 Carl Moberg
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> No, it's simply a question of authentication, authorization and
> accounting (AAA). The
> weak form of AAA used for voice over POTS may be sufficient in that
> specific case,
> but my bank sure still want a PIN in order to give me information on my
> account balance.
Which is why my bank requires me to use an in-band authentication system
when I talk to them over IP, and do not require me to come from a specific
IP address. For once, the banks got it right in the big picture.
You are comparing apples to oranges here, trying to defend what is b0rken
from the beginning, because:
The telco does not require you to dial a PIN code before you can have a
dial tone. Ergo, the telco (cf Jakobs sadly correct analysis of the
monopoly on DSL) should not require a PIN / login for providing IP over the
same infrastructure -- with roughly the same possible amount of users per
physicallly identifiable copper connection.
> Well, I partly agree. Some users want a simple always on service, most
> don't really care if they have to type their username and password,
> not if that means that they may get cheaper access. No user wants to
> pay for
> the full weight of always on.
I pay, and I would not want it any other way, except cheaper, but I would
never give up "always on".
> This whole questions is not primarily one of protocols, technology, or
> the IETF,
> it's a question of how to actually build and run a sound business on
> providing services
> using the Internet.
And the answer to that is simple: Give people what they want, and with no
fuss. Never force stupid useless "features" on them.
Måns Nilsson Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC MN1334-RIPE
We're sysadmins. To us, data is a protocol-overhead.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (OpenBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----