[e2e] Protocols breaking the end-to-end argument
David P. Reed
dpreed at reed.com
Mon Oct 26 10:44:43 PDT 2009
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?
> 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...
More information about the end2end-interest