On Sep 7, 2010, at 8:02 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: > Russ says he believes the PR firm works for the Internet Society. > > I speak for myself, hence the use of my name. If you read the press release I copied to the list, you'll note that it doesn't mention Russ's name at all, but it does mention his role at IETF. > Can you give a link for that press release ? http://www.fd.com/news/index.php does not have it, and my usual news search resources do not reveal it. Regards Marshall > I hope that answers your questions, Brian. > > RB > > On 9/7/2010 4:43 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Sigh. It's hard to resist tendentious messages. I have two >> questions for Mr Bennett. >> >> Q1. >> >>> message from our public relations agency >> To whom or what does "our" refer in this phrase? >> >> Q2. Does your signature block: >>>> Richard Bennett >>>> Senior Research Fellow >>>> Information Technology and Innovation Foundation >>>> Washington, DC >> imply that you are making a statement on behalf that foundation? >> >> Regards >> Brian Carpenter (writing only for himself) >> >> On 2010-09-08 11:26, Richard Bennett wrote: >>> I think you should have shared the message from our public relations agency >>> that started this incident, Russ. Here's what it said: >>> ------------------ >>> IETF Chair speaks on Paid Prioritization - Thursday, September 2, 2010 >>> >>> "I note the recent discussion in the U.S. media in connection with 'paid >>> prioritization' of Internet traffic and the claim that RFC 2474 >>> 'expressly contemplating paid prioritization.' This characterization of >>> the IETF standard and the use of the term 'paid prioritization' by AT&T >>> is misleading. The IETF's prioritization technologies allow users to >>> indicate how they would like their service providers to handle their >>> Internet traffic. The IETF does not imply any specific payment based on >>> prioritization as a separate service." >>> >>> Melissa Kahaly >>> Assistant Vice President >>> <http://www.fd.com/> >>> 88 Pine Street, 32nd Floor >>> New York, NY, 10005 >>> T +1 (212) 850-5709 >>> F +1 (212) 850-5790 >>> M +1 (732) 245-8491 >>> www.fd.com<http://www.fd.com/> >>> >>> A member of FTI Consulting Inc. >>> ----------------- >>> >>> This clearly isn't Russ Housley speaking as an individual, this is the IETF >>> Chair making an official statement. >>> >>> The statement is misleading as RFC 2474 neither *implies any specific payment* >>> nor *denies any specific payment*. RFC 2475, RFC 2638, and RFC 3006 are plenty >>> clear on the relationship of technical standards to commercial arrangements. >>> >>> And yes, the Architecture RFCs are classified as "Informational" but that >>> doesn't stop the Proposed Standards from referencing their "requirements" as RFC >>> 3246 does: >>> >>> "In addition, traffic conditioning at the ingress to a DS-domain MUST ensure >>> that only packets having DSCPs that correspond to an EF PHB when they enter the >>> DS-domain are marked with a DSCP that corresponds to EF inside the DS-domain. >>> *Such behavior is as required by the Differentiated Services architecture* [4 >>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3246#ref-4>]. It protects against >>> denial-of-service and theft-of-service attacks which exploit DSCPs that are not >>> identified in any Traffic Conditioning Specification provisioned at an ingress >>> interface, but which map to EF inside the DS-domain." >>> >>> [Footnote 4] Black, D., Blake, S., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z. and W. >>> Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated Services", RFC 2475 >>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2475>, December 1998. >>> >>> I don't have any desire to limit Russ Housley's free speech rights, but it's >>> clear from all the evidence that he approached the press as the Chairman of IETF >>> with a statement to make about the argument between AT&T and Free Press, and >>> it's the statement in the official capacity that bothers me. I wouldn't take up >>> the IETF's time with a personal disagreement between Russ' interpretation of >>> DiffServ and anyone else's, but this issue is clearly far beyond that. >>> >>> Finally, the term "paid-prioritization" wasn't coined by AT&T, it comes from the >>> statement by Free Press that AT&T was criticizing. In Free Press' usage it means >>> any departure from FIFO behavior for a fee. >>> >>> RB >>> >>> On 9/7/2010 3:52 PM, Russ Housley wrote: >>>> Richard: >>>> >>>>> Russ said to the press that he considers AT&T's belief that the RFCs >>>>> envisioned payment for premium services implemented over DiffServ or >>>>> MPLS to be "invalid." >>>> This is not what I said. I said 'misleading.' >>>> >>>> The letter from AT&T jumbles some things together. AT&T makes many >>>> correct points, but in my opinion, a reader will get a distorted >>>> impression from the parts of the letter where things get jumbled. >>>> >>>> Adding to this situation, it is clear to me that the term "paid >>>> prioritization" does not have the same meaning to all readers. If you >>>> read the AT&T letter with one definition in your head, then you get one >>>> overall message, and if you read the letter with the other in your head, >>>> then you get a different overall message. I tried to make this point. >>>> >>>> This was captured pretty clearly in the article by Eliza Krigman: >>>> | The feud boiled down to what it means to have "paid >>>> | prioritization," ... >>>> >>>> As I said on Friday, I made the point that DiffServ can be used to make >>>> sure that traffic associated with applications that require timely >>>> delivery, like voice and video, to give preference over traffic >>>> associated with applications without those demands, like email. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately, it is not simple, and I said so. I used an example in my >>>> discussion with Declan McCullagh. I think that Declan captured this >>>> point in his article, except that he said 'high priority', when I >>>> actually said 'requiring timely delivery': >>>> | The disagreement arises from what happens if Video Site No. 1 and >>>> | Video Site No. 2 both mark their streams as high priority. "If two >>>> | sources of video are marking their stuff the same, then that's where >>>> | the ugliness of this debate begins," Housley says. "The RFC doesn't >>>> | talk about that...If they put the same tags, they'd expect the same >>>> | service from the same provider." >>>> >>>> Clearly, if the two video sources have purchased different amounts of >>>> bandwidth, then the example breaks down. However, that is not the point >>>> in this debate. >>>> >>>> Russ >>>> >>> -- >>> Richard Bennett >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ietf mailing list >>> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > -- > Richard Bennett > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf