On Sep 7, 2010, at 8:08 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: > Sorry, I don't have a link as I received it by email. If you doubt its > veracity, I'm sure Russ can confirm, as he already has done for me personally. >
I don't doubt its veracity, I doubt whether or not it is from a press release. A press release is, by its nature, released to the public. Regards Marshall > RB > > On 9/7/2010 5:05 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: >> 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@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >>> -- >>> Richard Bennett >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ietf mailing list >>> Ietf@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >>> > > -- > Richard Bennett > Senior Research Fellow > Information Technology and Innovation Foundation > Washington, DC > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
