Ed, On 7/16/02 12:23 PM, "Ed Sawicki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, but isn't there value in knowing who the implementors are so > we can gauge what skill levels are required to produce interoperable > implementations?
How do you gauge skill level? How does an external body know how many resources were put onto the implementation of a new protocol? > Besides, what's the reason for the secrecy? Many reasons. For one, a company may not want to advertise the fact that they are working on a particular technology (for whatever reason). For another, people might not want an experiment to be associated with what they do for their products. I'm sure you can think of other reasons. > I, for one, get suspicious when information is deliberately > withheld. It tells me that there's something to hide. Well, yeah. > This may seem like a small thing but I think it sets a > dangerous precedent. The standards process should be completely > open. The standards _are_ open. The implementations of those standards don't have to be (and typically aren't). > If IETF working groups can't be completely open about > important standards activity, they should be dissolved and new > ones formed that have more respect for their public trust. Interesting view. Wrong, but interesting. Of course, interoperability testing isn't, strictly speaking, a function of the IETF working group (as Randy Bush has pointed out). The point of interoperability testing as it is relevant to the IETF is to insure the protocol specifications are actually implementable. From that perspective, it doesn't matter who does the implementation, rather that at least two different sets of people can actually do them. Rgds, -drc
