RE: My comments to the press about RFC 2474

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



<sigh> Enough.. can we go back to travel tips now?

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Richard Bennett
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 6:02 PM
To: Livingood, Jason
Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474

  It seems to me that Russ should have said something like this:

"IETF develops technical standards. Our DiffServ standard enables 
applications to communicate their requirements for specialized treatment 
to edge networks and for networks to aggregate packets requiring similar 
treatment at network-to-network boundaries. We've generally expected 
that specialized treatment will be coupled by network operators with 
charging plans, but we're not in the business of standardizing business 
models. AT&T's interpretation of the early DiffServ RFCs is 
fundamentally correct - closer to correct than the Free Press 
interpretation - but those documents are what we call "Informational 
RFCs" and not "Standards." Informational RFCs reflect the views of the 
authors and not any broader consensus within IETF. IETF neither supports 
nor opposes differential charging for differential treatment of traffic 
flows. We deal with technical issues, not business models."

The statement that he did make: "This characterization of the IETF 
standard and the use of the term 'paid prioritization' by AT&T is 
misleading" is itself misleading and implies, to those familiar with the 
context of AT&T remarks as a response to claims made by Free Press, that 
Russ & the IETF support the Free Press side of the debate between these 
two parties. Check the headline:  "IETF: AT&T's Net neutrality claim is 
'misleading'". Does that make IETFers comfortable?

If IETF wants to walk the fine line between the sides in the regulatory 
debate, which will have technical implications before it's over, it 
needs to communicate a lot more clearly with the press than it has.

RB

On 9/4/2010 10:00 AM, Livingood, Jason wrote:
>> He's not saying that. He's effectively saying what I'm saying: payment
>> models are outside the scope of the standards, which don't require any
>> particular payment model in order to perform their job.
> +1 to that.  It seems the press struggles to understand that the IETF does
> technical standards and not business models.
>
> - Jason
>

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]