It is kind of obvious that if the IETF has taken no opinion on an issue then the only statement that the IETF chair is going to make in his official capacity is that the IETF has taken no position.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Richard Bennett <[email protected]>wrote: > Fortunately, Housley's not as recalcitrant about correcting errors as some > hardheads would like. See this article from today, relevant portions > highlighted. > > RB > Housely: IETF Has Taken No Position On AT&T Prioritization Assertions Though > group chairman personally thinks AT&T has "jumbled some things together" By > John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 9/10/2010 10:54:17 AM > Public interest groups including Free Press and Public Knowledge have > called on AT&T to retract a letter to the FCC that said the Internet > standards-setting body IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) had "fully > contemplated" paid prioritization, with the groups saying IETF disputed that > assertion. But Russ Housely, chairman of the IETF, says that is not the > case, though he said he personally thinks AT&T has "jumbled some things > together." > > Paid prioritization is one of two key issues on which the FCC is seeking > more comment before it proceeds with its effort to expand and codify network > openness principles. > > In AT&T's > letter<http://www.broadcastingcable.com/common/jumplink.php?target=http%3A%2F%2Ffjallfoss.fcc.gov%2Fecfs%2Fdocument%2Fview%3Fid%3D7020910396>it > said Free Press was confused about paid prioritization in its own letter. > AT&T has said that paid prioritization was contemplated by IETF, is already > widely available from multiple providers, and is used by small businesses as > well as the handful of giants Free Press says benefit from it. In a blog > posting Thursday, AT&T SVP Bob Quinn, who signed the FCC letter, defined > that prioritization as "providing customers the option of purchasing a > higher quality of service." > > Public Knowledge, Free Press and others issued a release this week > headlined "Internet Engineering Task Force Says ‘AT&T Is Misleading' on Net > Neutrality." They argue AT&T is blurring the line between paid > prioritization, which Free Press defined as "speeding up and slowing down" > Internet traffic according to who pays more, and "accepted business-class > network management practices." > > The call for a retraction came after Housely told the National Journal that > the AT&T letter was misleading. > > "IETF prioritization technology is geared toward letting network users > indicate how they want network providers to handle their traffic, and there > is no implication in the IETF about payment based on any prioritization," he > said. > > *But Housely says he was speaking for himself, not IETF. "I want to be > clear that I was speaking as an individual when I spoke to reporters last > Friday," he told the magazine in an e-mail. "The [public interest group] > press release says: 'The IETF, however, disputes AT&T's claims.' The IETF > has not taken any consensus position on this matter," he said, adding in a > follow-up e-mail: "[T]he IETF produces technical specification for the > Internet. The IETF does not make statements about prices for network > services." > * > Compromise language being hammered out by industry representatives, > including AT&T and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, on a > legislative path to clarifying the FCC's Internet access oversight authority > is likely to include an agreement that paid prioritization of service should > be allowed, but with assurances that such prioritization does not come at > the cost of the robustness of the "public Internet." > > Housely says the "jumble" comes from the meaning of "paid prioritization. > "[I]t is clear to me that the term "paid prioritization" does not have the > same meaning to all readers," he told *B&C*. "If you read the AT&T letter > with one definition in your head, then you get one overall message, and if > you read the letter with the other in your head, then you get a different > overall message. I tried to make this point." > > Housely told *B&C* that AT&T in its letter makes "many correct points"--he > did not specify which they were--but that it also "jumbles some things > together." "[I]n my opinion, a reader will get a distorted impression from > the parts of the letter where things get jumbled," he said. > * > The problem, Housely says, is that the IETF specification at issue is not > about "prioritization," but about quality of service.* "Different > applications need different things from the network to deliver a quality > experience," he said. He used as an example of giving preference to "traffic > associated with applications that require timely delivery, like voice and > video, over traffic associated with applications without those demands, like > email." > > Housely says the debate is not about that, but about what happens if, say, > two video sites both mark their packets of info for timely delivery. "If two > sources of video are marking their stuff the same, then that's where the > ugliness of this debate begins," Housley told the Journal. "The RFC doesn't > talk about that...If they put the same tags, they'd expect the same service > from the same provider." > * > *That would be the difference between a tier of service where everyone was > treated equally in that tier, and one in which one company could pay to have > its service get priority over another similarly situated company expecting > equal treatment. > > "Clearly, if the two video sources have purchased different amounts of > bandwidth, then the example breaks down," Housely told this magazine, again, > *speaking for himself*. "However, that is not the point in this debate." > > Asked to respond to Housely's clarification that his criticisms of AT&T > were his opinion, not IETF's, Free Press's Derek Turner, was undeterred: > "Nothing changes the fact AT&T was caught red-handed misleading the > Commission by conflating the harmful practice it agreed not to use as a > condition of its merger with Bell South, with widely recognized legitimate > network management practices. "Housley is an independent expert in his own > right and his opinion is backed up by several independent sources and > engineers."* > * > Asked about Housely's "jumbled" reference, AT&T referred the magazine to > its original letter to the FCC in which it outlines the IETF RFC (request > for comment) language on which it bases its conclusion that the IETF had > meant to "facilitate paid prioritization as a means for encouraging the > further growth and development of the Internet." > > > http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/456906-Housely_IETF_Has_Taken_No_Position_On_AT_T_Prioritization_Assertions.php > > > On 9/10/2010 3:43 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: > > On Sep 9, 2010, at 4:46 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > > > There are two possibilities here: > > 1) The Press Release is accurate in its representation of the IETF > > No action is required > > 2) Someone on the Internet is wrong > > That never happens! Maybe the IETF should start a working group to insure > that all information on the Internet is correct :-) > > Bob > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected]https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > -- > Richard Bennett > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
