I don't think that burying IETF's collective head in the sand is a
very good option, Richard.
The IETF chairman is on the public record with a misleading statement
that reflects neither the IETF consensus nor the content of the DiffServ
RFCs. The FCC has launched a specific inquiry into DiffServ and other
"managed flow" services (including charging), and these remarks as they
currently exist in two media outlets, will be part of the record in
that inquiry.
I think Russ and IETF need to make some clarifying remarks. From Russ'
rather terse remarks here, he seems to feel he was misquoted. A
clarifying statement can correct that; pretending nothing is happening
will not.
RB
On 9/4/2010 3:51 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:
<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
--
Richard Bennett
Senior Research Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Washington, DC
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf