IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474

Theodore Tso <tytso@MIT.EDU> Wed, 08 September 2010 11:25 UTC

Return-Path: <tytso@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E8743A684D; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 04:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id okDVj7FNhCqF; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 04:25:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-1.mit.edu (DMZ-MAILSEC-SCANNER-1.MIT.EDU [18.9.25.12]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CB983A682D; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 04:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 1209190c-b7c9cae00000753f-dd-4c8772c80982
Received: from mailhub-auth-1.mit.edu ( [18.9.21.35]) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-1.mit.edu (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with SMTP id 42.03.30015.8C2778C4; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 07:26:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH.MIT.EDU [18.7.22.103]) by mailhub-auth-1.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id o88BQ0on024045; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 07:26:00 -0400
Received: from [10.0.42.101] (c-98-216-98-217.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [98.216.98.217]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.4) with ESMTP id o88BPwg2023933 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 8 Sep 2010 07:25:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@MIT.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <4C876E55.3030803@bennett.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 07:25:57 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D4A97B3C-0D76-4E71-B1BC-575432EF4B22@mit.edu>
References: <4C815335.4050209@bennett.com> <4C81554D.5060000@gmail.com> <4C8169DF.7010202@bennett.com> <4C8172AC.9060202@gmail.com> <4C817866.7040400@bennett.com> <4C86C215.9080209@vigilsec.com> <4C86CA16.6050501@bennett.com> <4C86EEFC.5030001@gmail.com> <4C86F541.6060007@bennett.com> <69E1D835-4B6E-4B50-83E7-C1F41E133974@mit.edu> <4C876E55.3030803@bennett.com>
To: Richard Bennett <richard@bennett.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 11:25:34 -0000

On Sep 8, 2010, at 7:07 AM, Richard Bennett wrote:

> You can read AT&T's letter to the FCC here: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020910396

OK, I find the section heading, "Paid Prioritization Expressly Contemplated by the IETF" to be highly misleading.

> I think you'll find that the phrases you quote below are not in the letter, so it's not clear that your comments are in any way relevant to the issue under discussion, Ted.

We don't know what AT&T said to the reporter, do we?   And what we seem to be arguing about is a press release, not a formal submission to the FCC stating an official position of the IETF (something which the IETF generally doesn't do).

In any case, I still don't think we need to do anything, and if it's OK for you to state wants, I'll state a want.  I want you to drop this.  :-)

-- Ted

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email