At the minimum, such violations of IETF Standards should be formally
noted in a letter from the IAB to the offending vendor, whoever that
might be, when such information becomes available to the IESG or the
IAB.
Among other things, such notices would result in a formally recorded
track record
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:30:48 PST, Einar Stefferud said:
> At the minimum, such violations of IETF Standards should be formally
> noted in a letter from the IAB to the offending vendor, whoever that
> might be, when such information becomes available to the IESG or the
> IAB.
>PS:I
Perhaps the thing to do is make the results of interoperability
testing public - only for shipping versions of software.
Developers can then develop and fix their bugs and not get bad
press about not yet shipped products. And when they do ship their
product it seems fair their competitors and th
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 08:49:49 PST, Kyle Lussier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> No one wants to be bogged down with bureaucracy, but I don't
> mind filling out an application, sending in $100, and getting
Things are always simple when things are working...
> the logo. If I become a bad vendor, the
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 08:53:12 PST, Kyle Lussier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> That's the only way I see to do it, not to mention, if it's cheap
> and easy, lots of people will do it, and you would generate a
> $10m legal fund so that it had some teeth.
Are you that sure that there are 100,000 sepe
If we are talking adequacy of implementations I have no comment but if
we are talking here pursuits of characterizing facts through
implementations IETF has a role since tests alone can shed some light
on any aspect of network topology which directly or indirectly may be
under the specified doma
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 spec
> there's more than one kind of effectiveness. effectiveness at getting
> a technology deployed is quite different from effectiveness of that
> technology (once deployed) at supporting reliable operation for a
> variety of applications.
keith - may i refer you to don eastlake's earlier reply? vi
Maybe that's the way to do it. Put up a list of non-conforming
products.
>From my perspective, we are just looking for some kind of a
well-maintained vehicle to reference in our support contracts.
A list would meet that need, as would trademark certification
and other things.
The thing tha
> > That's the only way I see to do it, not to mention, if it's cheap
> > and easy, lots of people will do it, and you would generate a
> > $10m legal fund so that it had some teeth.
>
> Are you that sure that there are 100,000 seperate products that
> would want to have the logo attached to th
> If a vendor *fixes* something and we get burned that bad, what makes
> you think that yanking the right to use a logo will change anything?
Well, the whole point of it is to give CIOs and IT Managers the
ability to write into their contracts "IETF Compliance" or no
money.
CIOs would still nee
g'day,
Kyle Lussier wrote:
. . .
> I'm a strong proponent of the "one true mark", easy-in, no hassles.
> With strong, but forgiving enforcement policies.
>
> That's the only way I see to do it, not to mention, if it's cheap
> and easy, lots of people will do it, and you would generate a
> $10m
> This all sounds like you're being a tad fluffy on the business side here...
Well.. I burst out loud laughing on that one. I guess other
certification efforts, that cost $5000+ for logo compliance
aren't fluffy?
> But the biggest problem here is that you've just created a $10M annual cashfl
From: "Kyle Lussier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 08:49:49 -0800
>...
>
>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.
You do not understand how the IETF work
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:09:30 PST, you said:
> Well, the whole point of it is to give CIOs and IT Managers the
> ability to write into their contracts "IETF Compliance" or no
> money.
Oh. No. He brought "money" into it.
This makes it a *lot* harder to do without getting yourself sued.
You're
> From: "Kyle Lussier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
> Maybe someone in academics should organize it. ...
Like UNH?
If you don't know whom I'm talking about, please consider the possibility
it could be good to look around before additional proposals.
Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 8:49 AM -0800 1/23/02, Kyle Lussier wrote:
>
>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 t
Valdis.Kletnieks wrote:
> ...
> Microsoft's variant implementation of Kerberos however...
is RFC compliant, and includes a set of interoperability notes for the
defacto and predominant implementation. The fact that some people want
to change the RFC to restrict the possible set of implementations
> The only permanent bodies in the IETF are the IESG, IAB (and perhaps,
> depending on how you look at it, the NOMCOM, IRSG, RFC Editor and
> IANA). While not a member of any of these bodies, it is my belief that
> they would all be opposed to the imposition on them of the burden you
> are so zeal
I think, ultimately, this could be done. None of these
are scenarios that couldn't be handled in the application,
and testing would be a non-issue, because you just say
"my product follows IETF standards". The only worries
you have are about not conforming to the IETF.
But, the consensus, as I
--Original Message-
From: Peter Deutsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2002 8:20
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: grenville armitage; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification
g'day,
But the biggest problem here is that you've j
I think any attempt to get the IETF to do certification is doomed to
embarrassment and failure of one form or another (quick, or slow and
painful). However, the ISOC just might be interested and able to pull
it off.
> > there's more than one kind of effectiveness. effectiveness at getting
> > a technology deployed is quite different from effectiveness of that
> > technology (once deployed) at supporting reliable operation for a
> > variety of applications.
>
> keith - may i refer you to don eastlake's earli
;>
>> This e-mail is intended for its addresses only. Do not forward this e-mail
>> without approval. The views expressed in this e-mail may not be necessarily
>> the views of SOPAC.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kyle Lussier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
*>
*> But the use of a trademark, which stands for "complies with RFCs"
*> could be incredibly valuable.
*>
Kyle,
I suggest that you read RFCs 1122 and 1123 from cover to cover, and
then ponder whether the nice-sounding phrase "complies with the RFCs"
has any useful meaning. Perhap
> *> But the use of a trademark, which stands for "complies with RFCs"
> *> could be incredibly valuable.
> I suggest that you read RFCs 1122 and 1123 from cover to cover, and
> then ponder whether the nice-sounding phrase "complies with the RFCs"
> has any useful meaning. Perhaps you will
On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 18:14:56 PST, Kyle Lussier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> It's just for us, as a vendor, having something like this allows us
> to contract to supporting "interoperable" third party vendors that
> are well behaved, and we get an "opt-out" on vendors whom the
> IETF community ha
I fear that I made a notable mistake in the original suggestion that
we somehow deal with "Conformance". In fact, I agree entirely that
the issue of concern is "Interoperability".
As I have noted before, I also agree that the IETF is the wrong place
to deal with the problem by serving as the
Vernon Schryver wrote:
> ...
> It is all about as interesting as
> another recent arrival's descriptions of how "we" talked about the
> Internet in cafeterias in the old days before it really existed.
Since I made that comment... yes, that is what we (maybe not you) did
back in 1992 when I sta
> From: Ed Gerck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > ...
> > It is all about as interesting as
> > another recent arrival's descriptions of how "we" talked about the
> > Internet in cafeterias in the old days before it really existed.
>
> Since I made that comment... yes, that is what we (maybe not you) did
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 i
> 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
> 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 t
> > 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 "RI
> 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 driv
> > 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 o
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 testin
> 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 "
> > 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
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 c
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. ;)
41 matches
Mail list logo
