Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474
Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com> Wed, 08 September 2010 18:03 UTC
Return-Path: <eburger@standardstrack.com>
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 812873A67B1 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 11:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.409
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.190, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 QJkfSEYCrq9F for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 11:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gs19.inmotionhosting.com (gs19.inmotionhosting.com [205.134.249.249]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C6453A67D0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Sep 2010 11:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=standardstrack.com; h=Received:From:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:To:References:Message-Id:X-Mailer:X-Source:X-Source-Args:X-Source-Dir; b=P4SKh5qBRYYyQsRIXZiaplk8+d0Ex49rlcls0O8ertpinG9faFpnsOsGkzw5nAgmsQprRLbryLZs7t7boruM7ijahxU0KRl1Fm1OmzHCS0dGrbnw6j2kFYzfgkOwPniI;
Received: from ip68-100-199-8.dc.dc.cox.net ([68.100.199.8] helo=[192.168.15.194]) by gs19.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <eburger@standardstrack.com>) id 1OtOwX-0006Jw-O3 for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2010 11:00:22 -0700
From: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail-8-719149259"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
Subject: Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 14:03:47 -0400
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=SGomzWrw=qt6vR0XNzdBU+OK_uxBzyqeHAUyP@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
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> <D4A97B3C-0D76-4E71-B1BC-575432EF4B22@mit.edu> <AANLkTi=Gg0RAvs_rWdmWqK=wuPsfhaPUANe3nFqJ=_wq@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=SGomzWrw=qt6vR0XNzdBU+OK_uxBzyqeHAUyP@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <10999340-BC37-48D0-8633-95D0A2DB7560@standardstrack.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gs19.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
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 18:03:27 -0000
On the one hand, what people seem to be missing is at&t's PR was in response to an even more over-the-top filling by Free Press. On the other hand, that alone does not justify twisting what the IETF work product is. On the third hand, if one actually reads the at&t blog, at least 65% of it is (shudder) sensible. No one has clean hands here. -- Eric, who claims "employment" at Georgetown, which means this message absolutely, positively, does not reflect the views, opinions, comments, or thoughts of Georgetown University. Or at&t. Or Free Press. Or ITIF. Or Peter Pan. And if you missed it, in this message, I am neither representing ISOC, IAOC, ACM, IEEE, nor IEEE-USA. Just silly me. On Sep 8, 2010, at 12:56 PM, Gene Gaines wrote: > +1 to all by Phillip Hallam-Baker. > > Gene Gaines > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> wrote: > And let us imagine that the IETF was bullied into making a second > statement as Mr Bennett demands, how would he use it? Would it be used > in a good faith effort to clarify or would it be used to claim that > the IETF had repudiated its earlier claim that it does not take sides > in this dispute and that it has endorsed the position Mr Bennett is > paid to promote. > > While Mr Bennett is careful to keep saying 'we' it is a very long time > since he was an active participant here. The organization that he > works for, the ITIF is a DC thunk tank. Like all thunk tanks it exists > to cause people to accept the thinking that has already been thunk for > them by the people paying their bills under the guise of being an > objective research organization. > > > It is one thing to engage in these hair-splitting discussions and > having people bandy about the word 'truthful' as if it was personal > property etc. if they are made in good faith. But the tactics used go > way beyond what is acceptable for a paid advocate for a particular > position. > > > In this case, his activity here appears to me to be entirely > counter-productive. All he is doing is to draw more attention to a > claim that the AT&T policy office would almost certainly wish was > forgotten as quickly as possible. > > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > > > -- > Website: http://hallambaker.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Brian E Carpenter
- RE: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Shockey
- My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Russ Housley
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Marshall Eubanks
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 David Morris
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Russ Housley
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 John C Klensin
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Ofer Inbar
- RE: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Worley, Dale R (Dale)
- RE: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Shockey
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Randall Gellens
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Livingood, Jason
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Livingood, Jason
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- RE: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Shockey
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Matthew Ford
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 DOLLY, MARTIN C (ATTLABS)
- RE: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Chris Fenton (Iridescent)
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Patrik Faltstrom (pfaltstr)
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Ben Niven-Jenkins
- RE: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Worley, Dale R (Dale)
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Russ Housley
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Marshall Eubanks
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Marshall Eubanks
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Marshall Eubanks
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Randall Gellens
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Mans Nilsson
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Theodore Tso
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Theodore Tso
- The Evils of Informational RFC's Eric Burger
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Paul Hoffman
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Jorge Amodio
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Gene Gaines
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Eric Burger
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Bob Hinden
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Eric Burger
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- RE: The Evils of Informational RFC's Ronald Bonica
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Richard L. Barnes
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Bob Hinden
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Jorge Amodio
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Brian E Carpenter
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Richard Bennett
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Richard Bennett
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Richard L. Barnes
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Andrew G. Malis
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Brian E Carpenter
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Stephen Farrell
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's David Morris
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Fred Baker
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Olaf Kolkman
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Richard Bennett
- RE: The Evils of Informational RFC's Richard Shockey
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Dave CROCKER
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Kevin Fall
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Bob Braden
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Sam Hartman
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Russ Housley
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Yoav Nir
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Jari Arkko
- Re: The Evils of Informational RFC's Dave CROCKER
- Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474 Randall Gellens