[Chapter-delegates] IETF position on Paid Prioritization

[Joly MacFie]

Aren't we talking apples and oranges here?

The pemium service is a diffserv, and thus not Internet per se at all?

j

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Franck Martin <franck at avonsys.com> wrote:

> The two RFCs mentioned in the article, indicate clearly pricing, as an
> example:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2638
>
> 2.2 Premium service
>
> In [2 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2638#ref-2>], a Premium service was presented that is fundamentally
>    different from the Internet's current best effort service. This
>    service is not meant to replace best effort but primarily to meet an
>    emerging demand for a commercial service that can share the network
>    with best effort traffic. This is desirable economically, since the
>    same network can be used for both kinds of traffic. It is expected
>    that Premium traffic would be allocated a small percentage of the
>    total network capacity, but that it would be priced much higher.
>
> So who are you kidding, with this statement?
>
>
> Franck Martin
> http://www.avonsys.com/
> http://www.facebook.com/Avonsys
> twitter: FranckMartin <http://twitter.com/FranckMartin> Avonsys<http://twitter.com/avonsys>
>
> Check your domain reputation: http://gurl.im/b69d4o
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"Anya Chambers" <chambers at isoc.org>
> *To: *chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> *Sent: *Friday, 3 September, 2010 1:38:07 AM
> *Subject: *[Chapter-delegates] IETF position on Paid Prioritization
>
>
>
>
>  Dear all
>
> You may have seen some media coverage relating to AT&T and its
> interpretation of a certain IETF standard,
>
> for example: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20015231-38.html
>
> In conjunction with Russ Housley we have prepared the below statement to
> clarify:
>
> IETF position on Paid Prioritization - Wednesday, September 1, 2010
>
> "The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) notes recent discussion in the
> U.S.
>  media in connection with "paid prioritization" of Internet traffic
> and the associated RFC being discussed within the Internet's
> technical community.
> AT&T's characterization of the IETF and its use of the term "paid
> prioritization" is misleading. The IETF's prioritization technologies are
> tools that allow users to indicate how they would like their service
> providers to handle Internet traffic. The IETF does not imply any specific
> payment based on prioritization as a separate service."
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>
>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
  Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
---------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20100902/9d33827b/attachment.htm>