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
Interoperable with what?
Probably as a solution to this question, the logo yanking process
should basically boil down to, a system of checks and balances,
as originated by someone who isn't happy with a vendor. Kind of
like an Ombudsman in the standards community who's power is
to reduce the
If it's easy-in, it's not *worth* much.
I definitely agree with that, see below.
TYPO: Should be I definitely disagree with that.
Hell, as another example. If you are born rich, with a lot of
money, that didn't take any effort, and it *MEANS* a lot.
In this idea, everyone is born RICH..
If it's easy-in, it's not *worth* much.
I definitely disagree with that, see below.
A UL rating is worth something because it requires some effort.
An ISO9001 cert means something because it requires some effort.
An MCSE means something because it requires some effort.
A driver's
But since when was the IETF unaccredited?
Ahh.. obviously you don't really understand the Tao of the IETF. ;)
Hey... the IETF is fully accredited in my mind :). A lot more
accredited than some of the other accredited universities around.
Now.. so why did you skip over my comparison of a
Kyle Lussier wrote:
[..]
I seem to be getting two conflicting viewpoints:
#1 Vendors can only be trusted to be interoperable on their own,
and can not be forced to conform.
#2 Vendors absolutely can't be trusted to be interoperable,
without conformance testing.
Apparently, you've never undergone the effort it takes to
actually BECOME a US citizen...otherwise you'd NEVER characterize
that effort as *0*.
Being born in the US or its territories and thus having citizenship
by birth versus becoming one through
I seem to be getting two conflicting viewpoints:
#1 Vendors can only be trusted to be interoperable on their own,
and can not be forced to conform.
#2 Vendors absolutely can't be trusted to be interoperable,
without conformance testing.
Kyle, in all kindness,
Kyle Lussier wrote:
I seem to be getting two conflicting viewpoints:
#1 Vendors can only be trusted to be interoperable on their own,
and can not be forced to conform.
#2 Vendors absolutely can't be trusted to be interoperable,
without conformance testing.
On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 18:39:39 PST, Peter Deutsch said:
Would somebody please mention Adolf Hitler so we can declare this thread
complete?
The IETF is not the place for protocol nazis.
Done. ;)
*
* 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
* But the use of a trademark, which stands for complies with RFCs
* could be incredibly valuable.
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
On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 18:14:56 PST, Kyle Lussier [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
It's just for us, as a vendor, having something like this allows us
to contract to supporting interoperable third party vendors that
are well behaved, and we get an opt-out on vendors whom the
IETF community has put a
Kyle Lussier wrote:
[..]
As I've mentioned, I absolutely, positively do not want
conformance testing, of any kind!
[..]
What I am fundamentally looking for here is a procedure by which
there is a control mechanism for defining a vendor trying to
be interoperable (which is a
Your process for yanking a logo requires a vendor's implementation to
fail an interoperability test against a known standards compliant
implementation. Anything less would make the logo meaningless. That
smells dangeoursly like conformance testing. And that's why you're
getting such
Perhaps the thing to do is make the results of interoperability
testing public - only for shipping versions of software.
Developers can then develop and fix their bugs and not get bad
press about not yet shipped products. And when they do ship their
product it seems fair their competitors and
Vernon Schryver wrote:
...
It is all about as interesting as
another recent arrival's descriptions of how we talked about the
Internet in cafeterias in the old days before it really existed.
Since I made that comment... yes, that is what we (maybe not you) did
back in 1992 when I started
Without wishing to drag this thread on yet longer...
--On Wednesday, January 23, 2002 08:49 -0800 Kyle Lussier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The entire process will certainly have an impact on the organization,
even if certification is never revoked. The process of developing
test
That's the only way I see to do it, not to mention, if it's cheap
and easy, lots of people will do it, and you would generate a
$10m legal fund so that it had some teeth.
Are you that sure that there are 100,000 seperate products that
would want to have the logo attached to them, and
If a vendor *fixes* something and we get burned that bad, what makes
you think that yanking the right to use a logo will change anything?
Well, the whole point of it is to give CIOs and IT Managers the
ability to write into their contracts IETF Compliance or no
money.
CIOs would still need
This all sounds like you're being a tad fluffy on the business side here...
Well.. I burst out loud laughing on that one. I guess other
certification efforts, that cost $5000+ for logo compliance
aren't fluffy?
But the biggest problem here is that you've just created a $10M annual
From: Kyle Lussier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 08:49:49 -0800
...
It's up to an IETF working group to challenge that trust and
threaten to yank the logo, which is the one true mark of that
trust.
You do not understand how the IETF works.
Working
From: Ed Gerck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
It is all about as interesting as
another recent arrival's descriptions of how we talked about the
Internet in cafeterias in the old days before it really existed.
Since I made that comment... yes, that is what we (maybe not you) did
back in 1992
From: Kyle Lussier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
Maybe someone in academics should organize it. ...
Like UNH?
If you don't know whom I'm talking about, please consider the possibility
it could be good to look around before additional proposals.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 8:49 AM -0800 1/23/02, Kyle Lussier wrote:
snip
If I become a bad vendor, then people in an IETF
WG can move to yank my logo. There should be a process for
the yanking of the logo that is very fair, and arguably
should happen over a period of time, be pretty lenient
and give vendors more than
Valdis.Kletnieks wrote:
...
Microsoft's variant implementation of Kerberos however...
is RFC compliant, and includes a set of interoperability notes for the
defacto and predominant implementation. The fact that some people want
to change the RFC to restrict the possible set of implementations
The only permanent bodies in the IETF are the IESG, IAB (and perhaps,
depending on how you look at it, the NOMCOM, IRSG, RFC Editor and
IANA). While not a member of any of these bodies, it is my belief that
they would all be opposed to the imposition on them of the burden you
are so
I think, ultimately, this could be done. None of these
are scenarios that couldn't be handled in the application,
and testing would be a non-issue, because you just say
my product follows IETF standards. The only worries
you have are about not conforming to the IETF.
But, the consensus, as I
Deutsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2002 8:20
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: grenville armitage; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification
g'day,
But the biggest problem here is that you've just created a $10M annual
cashflow
for the IETF
I think any attempt to get the IETF to do certification is doomed to
embarrassment and failure of one form or another (quick, or slow and
painful). However, the ISOC just might be interested and able to pull
it off.
there's more than one kind of effectiveness. effectiveness at getting
a technology deployed is quite different from effectiveness of that
technology (once deployed) at supporting reliable operation for a
variety of applications.
keith - may i refer you to don eastlake's earlier reply?
-
From: Kyle Lussier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, 23 January 2002 4:04
To: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification
We need stronger enforcement of the RFC's, and we need creative
thinking as to how to go about
At the minimum, such violations of IETF Standards should be formally
noted in a letter from the IAB to the offending vendor, whoever that
might be, when such information becomes available to the IESG or the
IAB.
Among other things, such notices would result in a formally recorded
track
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:30:48 PST, Einar Stefferud said:
At the minimum, such violations of IETF Standards should be formally
noted in a letter from the IAB to the offending vendor, whoever that
might be, when such information becomes available to the IESG or the
IAB.
PS:I
34 matches
Mail list logo
