___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Richard Bennett
attachment: richard.vcf___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I suppose this means pigeon breeders will be allowed to apply for broadband
subsidies under ARRA in the USA.
Richard Bennett
On Sep 16, 2010, at 3:10 PM, Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv wrote:
On Sep 16, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
sh don't say it out loud
Ethernet was the absence of flow control, which
caused bad things to happen to the Internet when IMPs were replaced by
Ethernets.
RB
On 9/15/2010 12:04 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
On Sep 14, 2010, at 5:08 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
I wonder how many people realize that X.25 was a direct descendant
migrate over to the Internet
History list, internet-hist...@postel.org; we're way off-topic here.
RB
On 9/15/2010 3:00 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
I think it's actually pretty easy to make the case that a circuit-switched
protocol with a sliding
___
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
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
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Richard Bennett
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
message...
Noel
___
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
.php
On 9/10/2010 3:43 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
On Sep 9, 2010, at 4:46 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
There are two possibilities here:
1) The Press Release is accurate in its representation of the IETF
No action is required
2) Someone on the Internet is wrong
That's probably because RFC 2549 was the transitional document.
Richard Bennett
On Sep 8, 2010, at 7:34 PM, Kevin Fall kf...@cs.berkeley.edu wrote:
On Sep 8, 2010, at Sep 83:12 PMPDT, Richard Bennett wrote:
It seems to me that one of the issues here is that architecture models
me for policymakers in Washington
D.C. to reject ATTs deceptive tactics, and instead to adopt
common sense rules to protect consumers online."
###
--
Richard Bennett
Speaking on My Own Behalf
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
3:58 AM, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Sep 7, 2010, at 10:30 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
I'm making a very simple request, Brian: I want a new press release to go out
that corrects the one that most assuredly did go out last week.
There are many things I'd want, starting with a $10 million dollars
That's the point I've been trying to make. If you read the ATT letter
in context, as a response to the Free Press letter that was completely
bizarre, you'll conclude that the ATT letter was fundamentally
accurate. So the decision by the ISOC press relations people and the
ISOC policy people
Interested parties will note that I've stopped responding to Mr.
Hallam-Baker's trolls. This doesn't mean I agree with anything he says,
obviously. I've made a request of Russ Housley and the IETF community on
my own behalf. That's it.
RB
On 9/8/2010 3:02 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
e 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, t
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
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.
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
It's for Russ to say how widely the Internet Society's press release
was disseminated; all I know is that one of the reporters who covered
these remarks received it and the other didn't.
RB
On 9/7/2010 5:17 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Sep 7, 2010, at 8:08 PM, Richard Bennett wrote
errors were made in a press release that went out under our
collective names. They need to be corrected with a new, truthful
press release which is public and on the record.
RB
On 9/7/2010 7:03 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2010-09-0
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
technical standards and not business models.
- Jason
___
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
over traffic associated with applications
without those demands, like email.
The whole article is copied below, and it is online here:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/tc_20100902_7144.php
Russ
--
Richard Bennett
Senior Research Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
and if
you like, B.E. Carpenter and K. Nichols, Differentiated Services in the
Internet, Proc. IEEE, 90 (9) (2002) 1479-1494.
Brian
On 2010-09-04 07:57, Richard Bennett wrote:
DiffServ is a prioritization scheme, Brian, how can you say it's not?
IntServ is a reservation scheme, and DiffServ
zz0yV7O8Ofv
On 9/3/2010 1:34 PM, Matthew Ford wrote:
On 3 Sep 2010, at 21:13, Richard Bennett wrote:
As Russ is now invoking your message to support his view that payment for premium service is contrary to the wishes of IETF, that's a problem
out a press release clarifying the organization's position. If
he was quoted correctly, there's a much larger problem.
RB
On 9/3/2010 1:40 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
This is what the press is saying:
"The head of th
fserv deals with multiple different queuing disiplines, which may or may not be priority based. Please read RFC 2475 and if
you like, B.E. Carpenter and K. Nichols, Differentiated Services in the Internet, Proc. IEEE, 90 (9) (2002) 1479-1494.
Brian
On 2010-09-04 07:57, Richard Bennett wrote:
Brian Carpenter
On 2010-09-04 09:34, Richard Bennett wrote:
Brian's paper on DiffServ confirms the fact that prioritization is part of
the
standard. Here are the two relevant quotes:
In the original design of IP [33], a byte known as the “type of service (TOS)
octet” was reserved in the header
the bit at the beginning of each
RFC that defines its status is something that we've been used to for
many years.
Regards
Brian
On 2010-09-04 10:36, Richard Bennett wrote:
Let's go back to your original comment, the one that Russ has quoted
elsewhere. You said: It has been consistently hard
28 matches
Mail list logo
