[e2e] Protocols breaking the end-to-end argument

[David P. Reed]

Note: I did not and have never tried to get Bennett fired.  I will say 
that it is my opinion (openly held) that ITIF gains little from 
employing him as a spokesperson, and that Bennett has several times 
expressed the idea that my employment at MIT is somehow not to his liking.

On 10/26/2009 01:20 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
> Excellent response, David Reed. Don't forget that the FCC's Notice of 
> Proposed Rulemaking on Internet regulation quotes me re: the fact that 
> Pouzin invented the framework that we find in the Internet protocols 
> and four other systems of that era.
>
> BTW, I'm not participating on this e-mail list as part of my job, but 
> I'm sure David Reed will go ahead and try to get me fired again for 
> having the nerve to question his reasoning; it's been about a week 
> since he did that, so it's probably time again.
>
> Meanwhile, I'm revising my "Designed for Change" paper for 
> publication. The discussion about rhetoric and all has been very 
> illuminating regarding the motivation for the paper what has been 
> claimed to fuel the debate on Internet regulation, but to me the paper 
> seems to be a more a creature of some of the fashions of its age (RISC 
> and all that sort of thing.) Some applications have worked out well, 
> others not; do we know why?
>
> RB
>
> David P. Reed wrote:
>> On 10/25/2009 10:04 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
>>> 37 years of networking history boils down to this:
>> ...
>>> 13. Angry old hippies go "Right on, FCC, your daddy's Internet is 
>>> good enough for you!"
>>>
>>
>>
>> What a warped interpretation of history... it discredits itself, in 
>> my opinion only, of course.  If this were a forum for discussing 
>> policy matters, I'd engage in debunking it.  It is not such a forum, 
>> however.  This is a research forum, loosely associated with the IRTF, 
>> and Bennett's comments (true or not) have not contributed to this forum.
>>
>> With regard to historical analysis, Bennett (and his informants) are 
>> welcome to write an article for ACMs Annals in the History of 
>> Computing, where actual historians apply peer review to such claims 
>> and submissions.
>>
>> The use of the phrase "rhetorical trick" is offensive to me 
>> personally.  Bennett persists in this claim, and John Day 
>> surprisingly (to me) joins him in this warped idea that our paper was 
>> written as a move in a battle (war) that some would claim was 
>> relevant to today.  That it offends me personally doesn't matter that 
>> much in the scheme of things - certainly Bennett's strange historical 
>> analysis of "causation" wouldn't stand a test against facts.
>>
>> However, it is clear we must take Bennett seriously: Jon Peha (FCC 
>> Chief Technologist), Robert Pepper (former FCC senior exec and Cisco 
>> senior exec), Rob Atkinson (progressive political activist and friend 
>> of Blair Levin), and several Congress members (including Darryl Issa) 
>> support the organization that employs Bennett as a Senior Fellow 
>> where he makes this set of claims (ITIF) *as part of his job*.  That 
>> organization claims to be a "non-partisan think tank" devoted to 
>> research and analysis.  So I'd suggest that this analysis be 
>> subjected to rigorous review - but NOT on an IRTF list.  Perhaps 
>> Bennett's claim (made in his online resume) that he was "responsible" 
>> for major networking standards, "including ... WiFi and UWB" will 
>> also be reviewed rigorously, again, not on this list, but elsewhere, 
>> perhaps by the FCC.  Many people on this list know some of the people 
>> who are given credit for 802.11 in the community -- you're welcome to 
>> ask them about Bennett.
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20091026/107e3a4b/attachment.html