<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