Todd,
I see your point about the cost of producing standards. However,
having been both on the vendor and service provider sides of the
street, I can tell you that most (all?) service providers generally
require their vendors to implement standards so that their products
are interoperable and
There was indeed a major struggle over the standardization of the light bulb
socket. And the sad part is that due to patent encumberances the US
unfortunately ended up with the inferior product!
Neither Swan nor Edison thought much about the mount. It was Swan's brother who
did most to refine
It all goes back to the light bulb as a great example of
standards setting - back before there was a standard base for
bulbs, I'm sure every light bulb manufacturer had a vested
interest in their pre-standard bases and sockets - whether it
screwed left or right or used push-in pins, the
Since you brought it up, I am sure many readers of this list have
never heard of Swan, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Swan
He did indeed invent the lightbulb and all of us Newcastle alumni know
only too well ;-)
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol
On Oct 28, 2008, at 8:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Interoperability of standards is a hard-won prize, whether in the
IETF or elsewhere. The cost of producing documents is a mere drop in
the bucket. In addition, cost is a very slippery thing to get ahold
of because
--On Tuesday, 28 October, 2008 08:02 -0700 Hallam-Baker,
Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
It is also a neat rebuttal to the claim that network effects
do not exist - as Margolis and co claimed in their laughable
tract. If the issue were decided on technical grounds alone
the US and
- Original Message -
From: Douglas Otis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Michael Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.
On Oct 28, 2008, at 8:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL
Exactly, replacing SMTP for email alone is a non-starter.
But it is entirely possible to replace a subset of SMTP functionality that the
protocol handles poorly or provide a better superset.
For example, NNTP gots its start by providing a more efficient means of
distributing mailing lists.
- Original Message -
From: Andrew G. Malis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TS Glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:53 AM
Subject: Re: placing a dollar value on IETF IP.
Todd,
I see your point
The IESG has received a request from the RADIUS EXTensions WG (radext) to
consider the following document:
- 'Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) Authorization for
Network Access Server (NAS) Management '
draft-ietf-radext-management-authorization-06.txt as a Proposed
A modified charter has been submitted for the Mobility for IP:
Performance, Signaling and Handoff Optimization working group in the
Internet Area of the IETF. The IESG has not made any determination as
yet. The modified charter is provided below for informational purposes
only. Please send your
A modified charter has been submitted for the Behavior Engineering for
Hindrance Avoidance working group in the Transport Area of the IETF. The
IESG has not made any determination as yet. The modified charter is
provided below for informational purposes only. Please send your comments
to the
12 matches
Mail list logo
