[Chapter-delegates] IETF position on Paid Prioritization

[Fred Baker]

Joly, diffserv is in fact Internet service. It is Internet service that enables specified services to run in a predictable fashion. The mechanisms are also often used within ISPs for business reasons. You might care to look at

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4594.txt
4594 Configuration Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes. J.
     Babiarz, K. Chan, F. Baker. August 2006. (Format: TXT=144044 bytes)
     (Updated by RFC5865) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5127.txt
5127 Aggregation of DiffServ Service Classes. K. Chan, J. Babiarz, F.
     Baker. February 2008. (Format: TXT=43751 bytes) (Status:
     INFORMATIONAL)

On Sep 3, 2010, at 7:17 AM, Lucy Lynch wrote:

> 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