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 specifications is slow, tedious, and about as alluring as the >> prospect of writing a MIB. It tends to attract relatively few people > > As I said... no test specifications. Just $100, say you are > complying, boom you have the logo and the "trust" of IETF. US$100 is still a lot of money for some people. *Any* amount of money may be too much for some people, especially if they're in part of the world where wiring US$100 would be difficult/impossible. > 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. Is this a working group that's there just to oversee "mark value"? If so I'm not sure I see how it would work, given the massively diverse set of knowledge that would be required. If you mean the current working groups, then what happens when there isn't a current working group to oversee something that can carry a "mark"? > No one wants to be bogged down with bureaucracy, but I don't > mind filling out an application, sending in $100, and getting > the logo. 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 ample time to "do the right thing." > > The goal here isn't to punish vendors, rather, to promote > standards, and created a trusted "one true mark" that says > you have the trust of the IETF. CIOs can use that mark > as a differentiator with products and can choose to not > buy from vendors that lose that trust... The problem here is that while presence of logo is still pretty meaningless, non-presence of logo is totally meaningless. If there's no logo it can mean that the product is very very bad and doesn't work properly, or it could equally mean that the product is perfect and the author just hasn't done the "certification". Or is there a requirement for folks that have had their marks pulled to instead display a logo saying "we're broken"?
