Re: Yes, conformance testing required... Re: Fwd: Re: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification
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. ;)
Re: Yes, conformance testing required... Re: Fwd: Re: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification
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. > > > > Kyle, in all kindness, you're missing the most fundamental > > viewpoint expressed here recently: The IETF isn't the place, > > nor is it the organization, that could or should take on the > > role of interoperability-cop. > > Some have proposed the ISOC as a body to do this kind of thing. > > Is it also public opinion that the ISOC should or shouldn't do > something like this? > > I agree with all of everything being said. We mostly just need > to find the "right" body to do this kind of thing, and it's > still gotta be a "jury of peers" for it to have any value. > > We need a "United Nations of Standards Citizenship". Kyle, please don't take this the wrong way, but don't you think you've had your say on this subject? I count 31 messages from you on this topic since last Tuesday, including seven today. There are some people who share your interest, but the community seems to agree this is not the forum you seek. If you think ISOC might be the place, please take it over there, but personally I think it's time to let this one die here. Would somebody please mention Adolf Hitler so we can declare this thread complete? AD-thanks-VANCE... - peterd -- - Peter Deutsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] "All my life I wanted to be someone. I suppose I should have been more specific." - Jane Wagner -
Re: Yes, conformance testing required... Re: Fwd: Re: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification
> > 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, you're missing the most fundamental > viewpoint expressed here recently: The IETF isn't the place, > nor is it the organization, that could or should take on the > role of interoperability-cop. Some have proposed the ISOC as a body to do this kind of thing. Is it also public opinion that the ISOC should or shouldn't do something like this? I agree with all of everything being said. We mostly just need to find the "right" body to do this kind of thing, and it's still gotta be a "jury of peers" for it to have any value. We need a "United Nations of Standards Citizenship". Kyle Lussier AutoNOC LLC
Re: Yes, conformance testing required... Re: Fwd: Re: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification
> 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 "naturalization" are entirely > different. Well I agree with this absolutely. In any case, welcome to US citizenship for all those who have been through the process. I know it's a bare, so let me personally apologize on behalf of my government, for the fact you had to go through that. So I guess the thing we can learn from INS is to streamline the "naturalization" process for external proprietary products? :) Kyle Lussier AutoNOC LLC
Re: Yes, conformance testing required... Re: Fwd: Re: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification
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. Kyle, in all kindness, you're missing the most fundamental viewpoint expressed here recently: The IETF isn't the place, nor is it the organization, that could or should take on the role of interoperability-cop. cheers, gja
Re: Yes, conformance testing required... Re: Fwd: Re: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification
> > 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 closest match to product citizenship? It's might convenient to give me a list to work with, which the idea doesn't fit into, and then skip over my own addition to the list :) If all products are born proverbially "RICH", and gain the market acceptance as having been derived from the use of the logo, trust me, ... your not going to want to lose that logo. At first would it be meaningless? Sure. The logo will have zero meaning until it makes it's way into a few contracts and the minds of a few CIOs. By creating a logo, there has to be demand for the logo. The value of the logo is in the demand that it creates, and in the differentiation of other products that it creates. In a competitive market, everyone is looking to differentiate, accept the people who have proprietary standards at risk. Fundamentally, the logo is really about giving standards-supporting products a leg-up in the market. Well, we can argue this until we're both blue in the face. The reality is... you've got my idea on the table. We absolutely need something, so what's your idea? Or are you just saying don't do it, because it's not part of the IETF. That may be the correct answer, I don't know. That's what we're here to find out. Never bring a criticism to the table without a better solution :). Kyle Lussier
Re: Yes, conformance testing required... Re: Fwd: Re: IP: Microsoftbreaks Mime specification
Let's see the problem from another angle... IETF survives because, company and individuals give man/time to the IETF and because companies/individual becomes member of ISOC that pays the secretariat of the IETF (RFC editor, IAB,...). I don't know the full picture here but I think I'm close... What these companies get in return? Well they want that their products become standard and because they drive the standard then people will prefer to buy products from the standard maker than from someone else... (simplistic view). There may be some other reasons why companies sponsor IETF... But what is visible, nothing. If you sponsor the IETF work in money, then you get listed as ISOC organisation member. What the IETF/ISOC could offer on top is the rigth for a year to use an IETF logo/trademark "Support IETF" or "Designed for Internet" or something else... This logo shows the committment of the company to work with the IETF in promoting open Internet standard. As well RFC should be a registered trademark, so that each time someone write RFC 1234 compatible on their product they will add in the small print RFC 1234 is a trademark of ISOC/IETF. The ISOC/IETF get bigger visibility. It pushes company selling Internet product to refer back to ISOC/IETF and therefore understand that they should support ISOC/IETF... This does not go into the easy buy-in of kyle, but I wanted to provide a sideline view on how ISOC/IETF could be sponsored, but more on how the ISOC/IETF could acknowledge widely their sponsors... Cheers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Yes, conformance testing required... Re: Fwd: Re: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification
> 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 license means something because it requires some effort (OK, > maybe not a LOT, but enough to pass the road test ;) > > A diploma from an unaccredited "send us a check, we'll send you > a sheepskin" diploma-mill doesn't mean anything because there's no > real effort to be made. > > Which of these 5 is your scenario most like? None of the above. I assume you *think* it means the diploma from an unaccredited university. But since when was the IETF unaccredited? Actually, the thing I think it is most similar to is citizenship, such as US citizenship. Which takes *0* effort to gain, and means *A LOT*. :) Kyle Lussier AutoNOC LLC
Re: Yes, conformance testing required... Re: Fwd: Re: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification
> > 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".. but did you ever try to take away a rich person's money? That's like this idea is. Rich people fight their asses off to stay rich. That's what this logo is all about. Your born "RICH", but if you misbehave, you can lose all your money. Kyle Lussier AutoNOC LLC
Re: Yes, conformance testing required... Re: Fwd: Re: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification
> 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 marketability of a given product. Over time this power could grow significantly, and become very critical. If it did, that would be wonderful for everyone, because interoperability, as a whole benefits the Community as a whole, and puts the emphasis on superior implementations, and not on standards control. I.e., the issue be raised by whoever has the grievance with a given, logo-endowed vendor. He/she makes a list of the specific interoperability problems they are having. This is then submitted, in some official capacity to both the vendor and the ISOC. If the ISOC (or some other group / committee in charge of this) feels the complaint is a justified violation of "good faith interoperability", they can submit it to the vendor, and say they are beginning the procedure for "logo yanking." It should take maybe 12 months (maybe longer for some hardware issues) and give the vendor double the normal time. I guess it would need to be enforced by whatever Ultimately the process of "logo yanking" really amounts to the process of taking away a benefit, as opposed to a punishment. Being able to put the logo on a product is certainly a significant benefit, from a marketing standpoint. If the logo becomes recognized and enforced in contracts, it could, some day down the way, become a very potent thing. Overall there are three general benefits that this kind of an idea would deliver: - Increased interoperability, all around, help to "curtail" bad vendor behavior. If product designers know how important the IETF logo is to have on their product, they are going to think about that at the early stages of product development. - Increased marketability of products delivered by "interoperability-caring" vendors. - More money for ISOC/IETF functions. The downsides are the application fee ($100), a little bit of time on the part of whoever owns the trademark (but the reg fees could deliver sufficient administrative budget to handle that). Frankly, I don't think it should be up to external government systems or others to reign in badly behaving vendors. It is up to *US* the engineers to reign these people in. My increasing view is that it really is up to us. We're engineers, we can understand far better how to keep other engineers in line better than anyone else. We've all had that errant engineer working in our company. The ego guy, or the lazy guy, the arguer, whatever. Engineers know how to handle engineers. The problem today is that we know how to handle bad vendors, but we do not have the capacity to get them to do, well, anything to address interoperability. If we can tie a rope around the the proverbial money stream of a bad vendor, we help to insure it makes financial sense to be a good vendor. Personally, I think the time has come for something like this. I'm tired of misbehaving people and abusive people. It's horrifically inefficient. There are *SO MANY* problems IT has to solve, the one thing we shouldn't have is standards battles. Technology is hard as hell for normal people to use. *THAT* is the battle technology vendors should be focusing on, not these blasted standards battles, which are ridiculous in their own right. The enemy here is the "standards control" business model. The victors should be the best implementors. This kind of a thing is only dangerous to people who view the end all and be all of their livelihood to be the proprietorization of standards. That kind of behavior is the enemy of both IETF as a whole, and the entire technology industry. Because it makes it harder on everyone, because everyone has to learn multiple technologies, and you have varied benefits laying all over the place. It's not like there is a shortage of IT problems to solve. Everything is too hard to use. Fundamentally, government shouldn't be reigning in bad vendors, *WE* should be, and the way to do it is to tie a rope around the marketability of "Internet Compliant" products, and then educate CIOs about the importance of this. The thing I always hated about certification/conformance, blah blah, is that it imposes a static, fixed cost on all parties and isn't issue driven. I like this idea, because you pay your $100, you get improved product marketability in return, and it is totally problem or issue driven, as opposed to a static/fixed cost being eaten by all vendors, good or bad. Kyle Lussier AutoNOC LLC
