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
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
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
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: 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
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
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
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
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. ;)
Yes, conformance testing required... Re: Fwd: Re: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification
Kyle Lussier wrote: [..] As I've mentioned, I absolutely, positively do not want conformance testing, of any kind! [..] What I am fundamentally looking for here is a procedure by which there is a control mechanism for defining a vendor trying to be interoperable (which is a huge consumer, customer, and vendor benefit) vs. a vendor that is using taking standards and abusing them in the marketplace. Interoperable with what? Interoperability testing occurs between implementations, and doesn't require reference to a document or specification. Conformance testing is, essentially, interoperability testing against an implementation that has previously been declared standards-compliant - the reference implementation. Your process for yanking a logo requires a vendor's implementation to fail an interoperability test against a known standards compliant implementation. Anything less would make the logo meaningless. That smells dangeoursly like conformance testing. And that's why you're getting such push-back. cheers, gja
Re: Yes, conformance testing required... Re: Fwd: Re: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification
Your process for yanking a logo requires a vendor's implementation to fail an interoperability test against a known standards compliant implementation. Anything less would make the logo meaningless. That smells dangeoursly like conformance testing. And that's why you're getting such push-back. Well, this comment is undoubtedly going to cause some more push-back. :) 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. I guess everyone approaches things in different ways. And that's why I made the proposal. Because this idea works with either viewpoint. Personally, in this particular kind of massively distributed, diverging objectives scenario, I say trust everyone to do what's right and then use the logo yanking process to (1) identify ill behaving vendors / products, (2) give them double reasonable opportunity to correct, and then in the absence of any good faith effort (3) publicly (but nicely) flog them by yanking the logo. Trust everyone to do what's right. Reward the people who do the right thing (by allowing them to use the logo). And people who do the wrong thing can lose it. I'm not really a believer in conformance testing, because the space of the Internet is so rapidly evolving, anything you test against is a moving target, and because something conforms at one point, it may not next week. I think that sentence addresses the majority of problem-type criticism the idea has had. I am absolutely on everyone's side and agree with everything posted as such. Everyone has listed problems, but no one has said they can't be worked around. I'm just looking for a solution that creates significant, immediate benefit for people who try to follow standards. And when bad vendors come around and start doing bad things to hurt interoperability (an incredible benefit to customers, consumers, you name it), the IETF makes it easier for Mostly, I'm looking for some level of easy-in product segmentation for contractual, customer visibility, and CIO empowerment type things. If you are a vendor, and your customer gets pissed at you and says you aren't being a good vendor, and you said you would be, it gives them an angle to push. A slow, bureaucratic one, but a way to lead vendors, through reward, to do the right thing. Kyle Lussier AutoNOC LLC
