On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
<bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
> The method the IETF uses seems to be particularly immune to vendor
> interference. Vendors who want to participate in defining an interoperable
> standard can achieve substantial success. Vendors who only want their own
> way encounter deafening silence and isolation.
There have been a number of RFC's effectively written by one
vendor in order to be able to claim "open standards compliance", the
biggest corporate offender in this regard, but clearly not the only
one, is Microsoft. The next time I run across one of these RFC's I'll
make sure to forward you a copy.
The only one that comes to mind immediately was the change to the
specification of what characters were permissible in DNS records to
include underscore "_". This was specifically to support Microsoft's
existing naming convention. I am NOT saying that was a bad change, but
that it was a change driven by ONE vendor.
--
{--------1---------2---------3---------4---------5---------6---------7---------}
Paul Kraus
-> Senior Systems Architect, Garnet River ( http://www.garnetriver.com/ )
-> Sound Coordinator, Schenectady Light Opera Company (
http://www.sloctheater.org/ )
-> Technical Advisor, RPI Players
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
