I fear that I made a notable mistake in the original suggestion that we somehow deal with "Conformance". In fact, I agree entirely that the issue of concern is "Interoperability".
As I have noted before, I also agree that the IETF is the wrong place to deal with the problem by serving as the judge and jury. Whatever might be done needs to be a Market Based Initiative. My apologies for setting the wrong course...\Stef At 17:33 -0800 26/01/02, Bob Braden wrote: > > > *> > *> But the use of a trademark, which stands for "complies with RFCs" > *> could be incredibly valuable. > *> >Kyle, > >I suggest that you read RFCs 1122 and 1123 from cover to cover, and >then ponder whether the nice-sounding phrase "complies with the RFCs" >has any useful meaning. Perhaps you will begin to understand why the >IETF Way is interoperability testing, not conformance testing But you >are free to make your proposal at IAB plenary of the next IETF. > >This discussion is in a loop. > >Bob Braden
