Ed/John; Was hoping to get IAB/ISOC to facilitate a mechanism by which we could get a commitment from industry... If nothing else, sponsor the initiative, review/approve the agreement. There's no doubt the boards are thoroughly over-tasked. I didn't envision us managing or administering any non-compliance efforts. Believe it's appropriate for us to sponsor the initiative however.
John is absolutely correct that teaming with industry is the only road to success. Large Industry Forums must be driven (with $ incentive) to take the initiative to create synergy/come together on solidifying protocol-level electronic data interchange agreements for the www. Think we thought we had an industry commitment, but we need to regenerate it with broader (industry) base. Who cares if it is a conglomeration of a 100+ protocols as long as Inoperable deviation (standard non-conformance)is nixed. The interchange between apps is very poor even though the "Open systems" standard(s) initiative is over 15 years in the making. Was hoping our org could facilitate that effort... didn't see us implementing it. Isn't that an objective of the ISOC? Perhaps establishing an IEWG with ISOC reps and open to industry reps with the specific goal of a. Identifying the (existing preferably) Intl. Corporate leaders Forum that best fits this area. b. Sealing this type of commitment between "them in para. a" and ISOC/IAB. c. Take a covert approach so we don't bring politics in to our forum development effort. Definitely think an International organization made up of industry software product Corporation leaders would best head & implement a compliance effort focused at the software app development community and a common data- interchange format...there are plenty of forums, a decade of "marketing" talk of "seamless architectures", yet no synergy noted. So what IS the solution to maintain (Standards Orgs Internet-related) protocols'-compliant, configuration baseline so we can reduce incompatible EDI across the International Infostructure www, yet facilitating expeditious fielding of "innovative" ebusiness commerce enablers & end-user capabilities (& maximize profits of a product developer)? ...Excluding telecommunications hardware implementations... they have agreed to agree world-wide, whereas software companies have historically agreed to disagree & implement proprietary solutions in hope of creating a standard (at the expense of the end-user). The software industry big blues failed miserably at creating a "seamless" architecture... has a lot of zippers for sure... ha! ISO & ISEC seem to have an international following... the electronics industry has done really well in this arena, not sure why internet software info exchange is so lacking. Think the protocols can be classified as a utility (like electricity) to the consumer. Lot's of talk and forums but no synergy noted. Obviously "big blue chip" ebusiness can cause havoc if they implement a gross deviation. Is John saying that the IAB and ISOC don't want an agreement/commitment? Don't want to be the facilitators? Definitely none of want to be the administrators. Ideas? It's never too late to improve and I'd like to expand this discusson to a "vote" from some of the international orgs and big blue corporate forums. My perspective is that the underlying Infostructure (Internet) "exchange specific" protocols are a consumer utility & much like telcomm, should be agreed to by the "Big Blue" Forum. Will the ISOC/IAB sponsor this initiative to solidify an industry concensus-commitment to honor/sponsor a baseline protocol infrastructure using IETF and let industry "agree" establish the "policing" methodology. e.g. just like they did with the continous explosion in the electronics chip circuitry-components/busses. Camile Howerton --- John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --On Thursday, 24 January, 2002 11:23 -0800 Ed Gerck > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Now, let me summarize Case 3 -- which I briefly > outlined > > before: > > > > Case 3. The IETF discusses and > provides a simple, > > text-based, format for communications > sent to a > > set of Non-Conformance Lists divided > in areas. All > > NCL communications must have headers that match > the > > predefined format, and are parsed/routed for their > purposes, > > but no body text (where the > communication actually > > resides, the rest is addressing and > structure) is > > ever parsed. Communications that do not match the > format, > > are rejected -- after all, they are > non-conforming. > > Subscribers to each NCL will receive > the > > respective postings, that may also be publicly > read > > in web archives. Only subscribers to each NCL may > post. There > > are no replies to NCL communications. > All > > communications are the exclusive > responsibility of > > the authors, with an IETF hosting content > disclaimer similar > > to those used by webhosting services. > Communications expire in > > one year, but may be freely renewed > after > > expiration. Once posted, a communication > may be > > deleted by request from the poster herself, by the > IETF or > > when it expires. It may only be > deleted by the > > IETF if it is clearly spam or if there is > a legal > > order to do so. The hosting content disclaimer, > complete > > absence of editorial control in > technical matters > > and yielding to legal orders should > avoid the > > liability issues, but legal counsel must be > consulted before > > the service starts. The NCL should > be free for > > mirroring elsewhere. > > > > Since all NCL communications are under the > exclusive > > responsability of their own authors, both to post > AND delete, > > the authors are thereby encouraged to be > responsible ... or > > else. For additional details, see the posting > below. > > > > Comments? > > Yes. Administering this would be an additional > burden on an > already-overextended IETF Secretariat and the > entities who have > to manage them (primarily the IETF Chair and the > IESG) and that > there would be little value-added in having the IETF > somehow > associated with the process. If there were > significant value > associated with IETF involvement, I'd think about it > differently, but, defined this way, you are > suggesting adding > additional responsibilities, however small, to a > Secretariat and > an IESG that some members of the community feel is > already > stretched too thin and holding things up too much. > Substituting > the IAB for the IESG in that oversight role wouldn't > change > much, the RFC Editor (another possible arrangement > for > maintaining the lists and archives) is stretched > pretty thin > too, and so on. > > That doesn't make the _concept_ a bad one --I > personally find it > somewhat attractive although I remain skeptical > about > significnat impact for the reasons I outlined-- but > I would > encourage you to find someplace outside the IETF to > host and > manage it. > > john > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com
