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
You forgot that the ISOC funds the IETF, and currently the ISOC has
financial difficulties and that its priority is to fund the IETF, which I
fully support.
Most of the membership money from ISOC is directed towards the IETF by the
organisation members.I do not know what is the amount here, but
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.
p.s. OTOH it does seem foolish to try to make fundamental changes to IETF
by arguing on this mailing list. the organization is very wary of change
of any sort, and rightly wary of half-baked ideas. about the best you can
do with this list is to find folks who are willing to cooperate
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?
Hrm,
SoUL = Software Underwriters Laboratories
but I thought the UL was a distinct company in it self that other companies
send stuff to for testing.
So some one withe means and clout in the industy needs to take it up.
Suppose could put of a website like http://www.underwriters.org... hrm
I'm afraid that little if any sofware would pass the kind of destructive
testing that labs like UL normally perform. These guys will apply 1,000
volts to a system rated for 100 volts and so on. Can't imagine Windows
XPerimental or even Windows Crippled Environment would pass any rigorous
List:
U.S. Census data from Feb 19 stress the Internet time warp and
hint at the risk of ignoring it. What is at stake when a RFC is
faulty or not correctly implemented, for example hurting interoperation
or security, grows exponentially in time, and fast.
The Internet broke the 60 percent
Yo All!
Well Al Gore invented the internet in the early '80s, and the internet
penetration was not 60% by the early '90s, SO I think these numbers
are bogus.
RGDS
GARY
---
Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3,
The lesson from these numbers of 1999/2000, and that is why (somewhat
tongue-in-cheek) I quoted them and did not comment on the Internet
being 2 years old, is that they reflect what the public *sees* of the
Internet.
Let me be clear. The Internet as we know of today really started to
exist
At 6:53 PM -0800 1/23/02, Ed Gerck wrote:
In addition, within the last ten years the Internet has changed radically
from a centrally controlled network to a network of networks -- with no
control point whatsoever. There is, thus, further reason to doubt the
assertion that what worked ten years
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 20:57:14 PST, Ari Ollikainen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Could you name the entity (and network) that you claim
centrally controlled the Internet a decade ago?
I'm pretty sure that there was a total Bozo the Clown in charge of
the Internet at that time - I remember
We'll know when the Internet 'matters' on this measure, when they
take the management and oversight away from the IETF.
Like all other conspiracy theories, this falls down on defining
who 'they' are and 'matters'.
Australian State and Federal statistics on Internet only began a couple
of years
Umm... ok - 15 years ago. US DOD, Defense Communications Agency under an
agreement with ARPA ran the Internet (all 20-50 networks of it) and its
core routing system. In fact the internet was actually called the DOD
Internet. It wasn't until around '87 that a non-government sponsored
system
Franck Martin wrote:
The time is to move from 35% (early adopters) to 60% (beginning of mass
distribution), not from 0% to 60%.
Yes, as it was exemplified for phone use: 30 years to move from 35% in 1920
to 60% in 1950.
To those who were surprised by my posting, please note that I quoted
27 matches
Mail list logo
