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 <rich...@bennett.com
<mailto:rich...@bennett.com>> 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@ietf.org <mailto:Ietf@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Richard Bennett
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org <mailto:Ietf@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
--
Richard Bennett
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf