Indeed, K St. think tanks were heavily involved in the Kennedy
assassination, Watergate, and 9/11. Like IPv6, it's all about the
address.
RB
On 9/14/2010 6:25 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
If you have such a poor opinion of engineers, then why post
here?
In my experience, K-street think tanks provide negative
value. Almost without exception they refuse to disclose their
sources of funding while peddling talking points written for
them by the people who fund them.
In this forum you are purporting to be a disinterested
private individual while being a paid staff member of a business
that is paid to be an advocate for a specific point of view on
the subject you are posting on.
Most people would consider that this would be an interest
that required disclosure.
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 8:08 PM,
Richard Bennett <richard@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I wonder how many people realize that
X.25 was a direct descendant of ARPANET, and that BB&N
became a leading supplier of X.25 hardware simply by
continuing the IMP down its evolutionary path.
The dialog on Internet regulation is world-wide. The EC has
an open inquiry on it, and nations around the world are
grappling with Internet policy as they contemplate the best
means of stimulating the deployment of more capable
infrastructure that will ultimately replace twisted pair
with coax and fiber and replace 2G and 3G mobile with LTE.
Providing wholesale access to the legacy twisted pair cable
plant doesn't cause fiber to magically spring up out of the
Earth and connect homes together in a seamless mesh.
Engineers have no more intrinsic insight into network policy
than economists have regarding network protocols; law
professors are generally lame on both fronts. The most
interesting policy work regarding the Internet these days
comes from multi-disciplinary teams working in academe and
in the think tanks.
RB
On 9/14/2010 2:57 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2010-09-15 04:36, Bob Braden wrote:
On 9/14/2010 8:11 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Noel Chiappa:
I actually vaguely recall discussions about the
TOS field (including
how many bits to give to each sub-field), but I
can't recall very
much of the content of the discussions. If
anyone cares, some of the
IENs which document the early meetings might say
more.
See RFC 760, which seems remarkably up-to-date:
A few networks offer a Stream service,
whereby one can achieve a
smoother service at some cost.
That might have been only a sideways acknowledgment
of ST-II.
Not to mention that at the time, the great competitor
for all this
new-fangled connectionless datagram stuff was X.25, a
pay-per-connection
and pay-per-byte stream service.
As PHB says, intentions back then hardly matter
anyway.
Maybe we can leave this debate to some USA local
discussion list
where it belongs? Those of us in the economies where
there is
competition on the local loop are not that interested.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Richard Bennett
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
--
Richard Bennett
|
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf