ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Fwd: Re: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification

2002-01-22 21:10:01
If someone wants to start some sort of organization to test
conformance to that organization's interpretation of IETF standards,
that's OK with me, as long as they don't pretend they are testing
anything other than their interpretation of IETF standards. And as
long as they don't claim that successful conformance testing will lead
to successful interoperability, since historic experience disproves
this.

And this process is arguably one of the greatest values of IETF.

What we need is stronger enforcement of the RFCs that get adopted,
and I don't see how arbitrary independent third parties can be
expected to do RFC enforcement.

We need stronger enforcement of the RFC's, and we need creative
thinking as to how to go about that.  I like the idea of an easy
in "IETF Certified" trademark, if you abuse it, it can be revoked,
and then vendors building contracts around supporting IETF Certified
products.  

It gives CIOs something to rattle about as well.  I.e., they
can require IETF Certification of products, which guarantees them
standards support, as enforced by the IETF community.

Just a simple precise trademark construct, with an "easy-in"
application that costs maybe $100 per product, and supported
by the IETF.  That certification could be revoked down the road.

If CIOs start requiring IETF certification from their vendors,
we'll see a lot of this stuff disappear.  Imagine if the CIO of
Wells Fargo requires Microsoft to be IETF certified, or no more
money from them?

IETF doesn't have to be a conformance body or litigator.  It just
merely needs to be the bearer of the "one true mark" :).

Kyle Lussier
AutoNOC LLC