[Chapter-delegates] IETF position on Paid Prioritization

Eric Burger eburger at standardstrack.com
Fri Sep 3 09:38:31 PDT 2010 

Franck -

Not quite true. I agree the IETF never explicitly considers things like business models when examining protocols. However, for a protocol to pass muster as an Internet protocol, it must address security, scale, and privacy issues. One could argue that security and privacy are moral/ethical judgements. This is one of the reasons the IETF is loath to tackle lawful intercept.

That said, I fully agree with your assertion that what people do with Internet protocols is out of scope for the IETF. If someone wants to charge for diffserv, great! If someone wants to charge for a SIP "call," great! If someone wants to give it away for free, even better! The point is that IETF protocols have generated great wealth (think HTTP and any large Internet Web-based firm) and have destroyed great wealth (think RTP and any voice communications carrier or legacy equipment manufacturer).

Could we say the IETF is Shumpeter's creative destruction of the mind? :-)

On Sep 2, 2010, at 11:49 PM, Franck Martin wrote:

> My take, is a bit different, but not too far off...
> 
> The IETF is a mechanism for individuals to propose and codify open interoperable Internet protocols, as such the IETF does not make a judgment on the moral/ethical quality of any proposal, but focus only on its technical merits and that it will not jeopardize any widely deployed current protocol.
> 
> So basically, I say it is fine to propose paid QOS specs to IETF and get some consensus on it via IETF, it does not mean people will use it. IETF define a common toolbox of compatible tools usable by all without prejudice, what people do with this toolbox is not IETF role to decide.
> 
> 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: "Franck Martin" <franck at avonsys.com>
> Cc: lynch at isoc.org, chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org, zittrain at cyber.law.harvard.edu, "Russ Housley" <housley at vigilsec.com>
> Sent: Friday, 3 September, 2010 10:41:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] IETF position on Paid Prioritization
> 
> 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
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20100903/367f1e86/attachment.htm>

More information about the Chapter-delegates mailing list