[Chapter-delegates] IETF position on Paid Prioritization

[Lucy Lynch]

On Fri, 3 Sep 2010, Franck Martin wrote:

> Thanks Lucy,
>
> Then I think the IETF statement could be more accurate when including 
> this information, otherwise it looks like soviet era press release ;)

Maybe we should just point the press at: http://www.rfc-humor.com/
and see if they can figure out the jokes ;-)

As long time IETF participants, you and I both know that trying to explain 
how the IETF sausage is made may be more confusing and not less. I had to 
go look up the RFC you sited and then decode the type and the abstract in 
order to post my last explanation and I know how this works!

If I google for: IETF RFC payment service - I get a lot of interesting 
stuff but no real context. I think Russ it trying to point out that
selecting bits and pieces of IETF history without that context doesn't 
rise to the level of support for the AT&T position. A deeper discussion
of IETF process and standards production might be useful if he gets 
actually a reaction to his statement!

- Lucy

>
> Franck Martin
> http://www.avonsys.com/
> http://www.facebook.com/Avonsys
> twitter: FranckMartin Avonsys
>
> Check your domain reputation: http://gurl.im/b69d4o
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lucy Lynch" <lynch at isoc.org>
> To: zittrain at cyber.law.harvard.edu
> Cc: chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> Sent: Friday, 3 September, 2010 10:17:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] IETF position on Paid Prioritization
>
> On Thu, 2 Sep 2010, zittrain at cyber.law.harvard.edu wrote:
>
>> Can anyone tell me if this statement has been issued?  I don't see anything
>> on the IETF site, and there was no link in the original message.
>>
>> At GMT-4 05:56 PM 9/2/2010, Joly MacFie wrote:
>> Aren't we talking apples and oranges here?
>>
>> The pemium service is a diffserv, and thus not Internet per se at all?
>
> The background on RFC 2638 can be found here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nichols-diff-svc-arch/
>
> and say in part:
>
> "Abstract:
> This document was originally submitted as an internet draft in November of
> 1997. As one of the documents predating the formation of the IETF's
> Differentiated Services Working Group, many of the ideas presented here,
> in concert with Dave Clark's subsequent presentation to the December 1997
> meeting of the IETF Integrated Services Working Group, were key to the
> work which led to RFCs 2474 and 2475 and the section on allocation remains
> a timely proposal. For this reason, and to provide a reference, it is
> being submitted in its original form. The forwarding path portion of this
> document is intended as a record of where we were at in late 1997 and not
> as an indication of future direction."
>
> So, this is an informational RFC based on an individual author draft
> issued for historical reasons. This is not an IETF standard. The RFC
> series includes many documents that form a part of our historical
> record but are not recommended practice (BCP) or intended for deployment
> at an IETF standard. Confusing, but true. See the RFC-Editor site for
> more: http://www.rfc-editor.org/RFCoverview.html
>
> - Lucy
>
>
>> 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], 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 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>