Thanks Marshall for clarifying that it is the threat of litigation
that keeps the world from calling a spade a spade.
So be it. One day, maybe the markets will awaken to reality like it
awoke to the realities of IBM in 1986 or so.
BTW, there are more than one vendor that is guilty of violating
standards with impunity. But, I will accept that this is not the
responsibility of IETF.
It is the responsibility of the market to deal with the problem,
which I suggest might be fulfilled with some public dissemination of
At 13:15 -0800 22/01/02, Marshall T. Rose wrote:
> 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
stef - i think we can agree that i'm not an apolgist for the company in
question. however, i don't think you fully appreciate the consequences of
the ietf does standardization, it does not do interoperability testing,
conformance certification, or protocol policing. we rely on other
organizations and the market for those tasks.
setting aside, for the moment, whether the i-architecture-b should be
sending letters about non-conformance to i-engineering-tf standards, the
fact remains that whoever does such a thing has to have a well-defined,
defensible process for making such determinations. this includes a review
process, an appeals process, and so on. none of these things are in place.
the missing word in the paragraph above is "litigation", and i see no reason
why the voluntary i-* organization should willingly undertake an activity
that invites a lot of it, particularly when the market will sort it all out
(as it eventually does).
i would much rather spend my time privately reminding my colleagues at the
company in question of their professional responsibilities, than to have our
attorneys and their attorneys rack up billable hours...