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
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..
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
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
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.
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 kindness,
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.
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. ;)
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
