At 7:23 AM +0200 9/8/10, Mans Nilsson wrote:
Subject: Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Date: Tue, Sep
07, 2010 at 09:52:08PM -0700 Quoting Randall Gellens
(rg+i...@qualcomm.com):
What is at the other end of the fiber (either STOKAB or individual home
owners
You are a staff member of ITIF according to their web site. I presume
you are paid.
ITIF is paid to present a certain point of view in the FCC rule making process.
Therefore you have an interest that you really should have disclosed
before making all these rather unpleasant statements on and off
For the record, I do not consider pointing out a documented employer
interest after one has been explicitly denied to be a 'troll'.
If you are demanding issue of a press release on a subject, the fact
that your employer is a paid promoter of specific policy outcomes on
that issue is a fact that
On Sep 8, 2010, at 3:03 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Sep 7, 2010, at 7:26 PM, 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
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 in my bank
account. I think
You can read ATT's letter to the FCC here:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020910396
I think you'll find that the phrases you quote below are not in the
letter, so it's not clear that your comments are in any way relevant to
the issue under discussion, Ted.
RB
On 9/8/2010
On Sep 8, 2010, at 7:07 AM, Richard Bennett wrote:
You can read ATT's letter to the FCC here:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020910396
OK, I find the section heading, Paid Prioritization Expressly Contemplated by
the IETF to be highly misleading.
I think you'll find that
I see no reason for any further clarification.
If ATT want a retraction then they should request one directly. I do
not see why this is a concern of either Mr Bennett or his employer.
The statement made appears perfectly accurate and fair as far as I am
concerned.
The IETF has taken no stance
And let us imagine that the IETF was bullied into making a second
statement as Mr Bennett demands, how would he use it? Would it be used
in a good faith effort to clarify or would it be used to claim that
the IETF had repudiated its earlier claim that it does not take sides
in this dispute and
+1 to all by Phillip Hallam-Baker.
Gene Gaines
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.comwrote:
And let us imagine that the IETF was bullied into making a second
statement as Mr Bennett demands, how would he use it? Would it be used
in a good faith effort to
On the one hand, what people seem to be missing is att's PR was in response to
an even more over-the-top filling by Free Press. On the other hand, that alone
does not justify twisting what the IETF work product is. On the third hand, if
one actually reads the att blog, at least 65% of it is
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:
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.
No, it really isn't. That's not what Russ said.
Mat
___
to the press about RFC 2474
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Sep 2, 2010, at 8:45 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
So in my view the problem here is that when I pay for an X Mb/sec
connection at the moment I have no real way of knowing whether that is
really X Mb/sec all
On 4 sep 2010, at 07:06, Randall Gellens rg+i...@qualcomm.com wrote:
The idea being that a regulated or even municipal entity builds and maintains
the outside plant, with any Internet provider able to use it to offer
service. That way all details of the service are open to competition.
On 4 Sep 2010, at 06:17, Patrik Faltstrom (pfaltstr) wrote:
On 4 sep 2010, at 07:06, Randall Gellens rg+i...@qualcomm.com wrote:
The idea being that a regulated or even municipal entity builds and
maintains the outside plant, with any Internet provider able to use it to
offer service.
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Livingood,
Jason [jason_living...@cable.comcast.com]
It seems the press struggles to understand that the IETF does
technical standards and not business models.
Richard:
Russ said to the press that he considers ATT'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 ATT jumbles some things together. ATT makes many
correct
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
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
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.
I hope that answers your
On Sep 7, 2010, at 7:26 PM, 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
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
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
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
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:
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:
As Marshall indicated, this seems to have no public existence
outside of the present thread. However, let's assume it
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.
If you want to analyze this situation as you would an RFC, think of
it this way: some RFCs have errata. We don't rely on
At 7:17 AM +0200 9/4/10, Patrik Faltstrom (pfaltstr) wrote:
This is what for example us happening in Sweden all over the place.
Most well known project in Sweden is the City of Stockholm where
STOKAB is providing dark fiber (as a product) and nothing more.
In a similar way many villages
Subject: Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Date: Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at
09:52:08PM -0700 Quoting Randall Gellens (rg+i...@qualcomm.com):
What is at the other end of the fiber (either STOKAB or individual home
owners)? Is there a central interconnect point where any ISP can
connect
He's not saying that. He's effectively saying what I'm saying: payment
models are outside the scope of the standards, which don't require any
particular payment model in order to perform their job.
+1 to that. It seems the press struggles to understand that the IETF does
technical standards and
This sounds like there is potential for crowd sourcing here.
For example, I can tell you nothing about Vonage, but a fair
amount about Cox Cable Internet. What you want to know is
known, just not (yet) in a way you can easily access.
Would a Yelp type model be appropriate ?
With the
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
sigh Enough.. can we go back to travel tips now?
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Richard Bennett
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 6:02 PM
To: Livingood, Jason
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: My comments to the press about RFC
Bennett
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 6:02 PM
To: Livingood, Jason
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474
It seems to me that Russ should have said something like this:
IETF develops technical standards. Our DiffServ standard enables
applications
There is a fundamental problem with the way that Internet services are sold.
At present I have two companies that would like to sell me 'higher
speed' Internet service but I have absolutely no way to evaluate their
claims. In particular I have no way to know if changing provider or
paying my
On Sep 2, 2010, at 8:45 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
There is a fundamental problem with the way that Internet services are sold.
At present I have two companies that would like to sell me 'higher
speed' Internet service but I have absolutely no way to evaluate their
claims. In
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Sep 2, 2010, at 8:45 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
So in my view the problem here is that when I pay for an X Mb/sec
connection at the moment I have no real way of knowing whether that is
really X Mb/sec all the time or X/n Mb/sec
Another article has come out on the same topic:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20015498-38.html#ixzz0yTtFP7M7
On 9/2/2010 1:47 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
I want the whole community to be aware of the comments that I made to
the press yesterday. Clearly, these comments do not represent IETF
--On Friday, September 03, 2010 12:08 -0400 Marshall Eubanks
t...@americafree.tv wrote:
This sounds like there is potential for crowd sourcing here.
For example, I can tell you nothing about Vonage, but a fair
amount about Cox Cable Internet. What you want to know is
known, just not
Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv wrote:
On Sep 2, 2010, at 8:45 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
So in my view the problem here is that when I pay for an X Mb/sec
connection at the moment I have no real way of knowing whether that is
really X Mb/sec all the time or X/n Mb/sec when I am
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ofer Inbar
[...@a.org]
P.S. My neighborhood is about as far from being a tech backwater as
it is possible to be in the world. Yet I still have only one viable
option for high speed
LTE for a start..
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ofer Inbar
[...@a.org]
P.S. My neighborhood is about as far from being a tech backwater as
it is possible to be in the world. Yet I still have only one viable
option
DiffServ is a prioritization scheme, Brian, how can you say it's not?
IntServ is a reservation scheme, and DiffServ attempts to provide
desired PHBs in practice by sorting packets into priority queues and
invoking appropriate Link Layer facilities, which are in most cases
priority-based,
Richard,
Diffserv 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
Well first .. I do want to congratulate Russ for actually injecting a bit of
sanity into the ongoing NN debate and I think we all know he was speaking as
a individual. I'm personally +1 on his comments. The problem we collectively
have is that there is very little or no technical clue in the NN
Thank you for replying Brian. I've not only read the requisite RFCs,
I've also implemented DiffServ over 802.11e. My implementations, like
those of everyone else who has done this, invoked the prioritization
mechanisms in 802.11e. This is a very common case. Another common case
implements
This is what the press is saying:
"The head of the Internet's leading standards body said Thursday
that it is "misleading" for ATT to claim that its push to
charge customers for high-priority service is technically justified.
"Internet
The article goes on to say:
"We didn't foresee
ATT throwing our name into this discussion," the IETF's
Housley said. He added: "This characterization of the IETF
standard and the use of the term 'paid prioritization' by
ATT is
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 of every packet.
This was
On 2010-09-04 08:13, Richard Bennett wrote:
Thank you for replying Brian. I've not only read the requisite RFCs,
I've also implemented DiffServ over 802.11e. My implementations, like
those of everyone else who has done this, invoked the prioritization
mechanisms in 802.11e. This is a very
Er, exactly what in your quotation is incompatible with what
I wrote:
Diffserv deals with multiple different queuing disiplines, which may or may
not be priority based.
?
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2010-09-04 09:34, Richard Bennett wrote:
Brian's paper on DiffServ confirms the fact
Let's go back to your original comment, the one that Russ has quoted
elsewhere. You said: It has been consistently hard to explain that
diffserv is not a prioritisation scheme, even within the technical
community, let alone to the regulators and the media. Your
clarification is that DiffServ
Richard,
This will be my last message on these points, which were beaten to death
in the diffserv WG some years ago.
assured or expedited services, except nobody really knows how that might
actually work in a real scenario (or maybe they do, and it's just us humble
developers who don't.)
With respect, Brian, I don't think this is simply the failure of
journalists to discern the distinction between Informational RFCs and
Standards Track RFCs. Nobody has made the claim that the IETF produced a
standard for accounting and billing for QoS or anything else.
Informational RFCs are
At 3:25 PM -0400 9/3/10, Ofer Inbar wrote:
I have nowhere else to go, and I think that is
the typical situation for most households in the US. Even if the
industry manages to get it together in terms of making clear what
level of service they offer, I don't know that there's any way out
Russ,
It has been consistently hard to explain that diffserv is not a
prioritisation scheme, even within the technical community, let
alone to the regulators and the media. I think your comments as
quoted are as good as we can expect from journalists.
It should be a matter of concern to all of
58 matches
Mail list logo
