Well now, an idea blinked on here;-)... As Paul Hoffman noted, it costs a small fortune for an entire set of vendor products to be tested against all other interworking products (N**2 pairs is the estimate) and there is no proffered business model for doing this for the entire involved industry..
But, maybe someone can devise a business model for testing one product against all the others that claim to conform to the standard under test. I know that HP did this ounce for their Internet products by hiring a person to do it from one of their customer's sites on the Internet. It does not matter here who or where it was done. But, this puts the burden on the vendors that wish to be able to claim inter-workability with all others, or with some subset of their choice. Or they can identify those that do not interwork for the benefit of those that want to know such stuff. This then becomes an individual company decision, and does not require massed agreement, or require synchronized work schedules. Just put your system on the net and find someone out there to test against. Doing it on the real net is just fine for this testing model. Of course, the vendors that do this can brag or not, as they wish. And here is no great concern for whether every vendor does it or not. And the market can make up its mind by itself. For my view, I have trouble believing that all those vendors are not vitally interested in inter-working among their products. And, in addition, I would hope that someone might mount an open discussion mailing list for people to use to post their private experiences with what does or does not work. And last: This is no longer a useful IETF discussion;-)...\Stef At 09:01 -0800 28/01/02, John W Noerenberg II wrote: >At 10:19 PM -0500 1/26/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>I have in my bedroom a night light, which I purchased at a local >>grocery store. It has a UL logo on it, which doesn't tell me much >>about its suitability as a night light (I can't tell if it's bright >>enough, or if it's too bright, or what its power consumption is), >>but it *does* tell me 2 things: >> >>1) It has been *tested* and found free of any known safety design problems. >>It may not *work* as a night light, but it won't shock me when I go to >>throw it in the trash can because it's not suitable. >> >>2) A high enough percentage of night light manufacturers get UL listed >>that I can afford to be suspicious of any company that doesn't have >>the logo on their product. > >Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. is a non-profit corporation that >was founded in 1894. This ><http://www.ul.com/about/otm/otmv3n2/labdata.htm>article describes >the process UL uses for developing their standards. Many UL >standards receive ANSI certification. According to the article, UL >relies on information from a number of sources while developing a >standard. > >UL tests products submitted by its customers for *conformance* to >its standards. UL's reputation depends on the rigor and >independence of their testing. I don't know how it costs to submit >a product for testing, but obtaining UL certification isn't free. >UL's certification program is successful, because when consumers >like Valdis (and me) see a UL label, they believe in its value. As >Valdis points out, the value of the label has limits. > >Certification isn't the work of a volunteer organization like the >IETF. It could be the work of an organization like Underwriters >Labs. This would be a good thing for Internet standards, imho. > >One idea proposed multiple times in this meandering discussion is >that those advocating testing should put up or shut up -- create a >testing organization or move on to other topics. I concur with both >those suggestions. I'm sure you'll all be pleased this is my last >word on the topic. > >best, >-- > >john noerenberg >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > While the belief we have found the Answer can separate us > and make us forget our humanity, it is the seeking that continues > to bring us together, the makes and keeps us human. > -- Daniel J. Boorstin, "The Seekers", 1998 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
