I don't think that burying IETF's collective head in the sand is a
very good option, Richard.
The IETF chairman is on the public record with a misleading statement
that reflects neither the IETF consensus nor the content of the DiffServ
RFCs. The FCC has launched a specific inquiry into DiffS
Enough.. can we go back to travel tips now?
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Richard Bennett
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 6:02 PM
To: Livingood, Jason
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474
It seems to me that Russ should have said something like this:
"IETF develops technical standards. Our DiffServ standard enables
applications to communicate their requirements for specialized treatment
to edge networks and for networks to aggregate packets requiring similar
treatment at netwo
>>This sounds like there is potential for crowd sourcing here.
>>
>> For example, I can tell you nothing about Vonage, but a fair
>> amount about Cox Cable Internet. What you want to know is
>> known, just not (yet) in a way you can easily access.
>>
>> Would a Yelp type model be appropriate ?
>
>He's not saying that. He's effectively saying what I'm saying: payment
>models are outside the scope of the standards, which don't require any
>particular payment model in order to perform their job.
+1 to that. It seems the press struggles to understand that the IETF does
technical standards an
On 09/03/2010 03:36 PM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
We've had as a goal for some time to move to having the same login/pw
for both the datatracker and the tools pages; I think we'll have to
try to move forward with that plan in order to handle the situation,
rather than the quick fix proposed above.
