"Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" wrote:
<snip status quo definition, which is what is being questioned>
...
Perhaps some will consider this strange or wrong but that is the way
it has been. And people have, in many cases, adopted IETF standards to
get this interoperability even over other organization's standards
that were legally mandated, claimed to be unambiguous, and/or had
massive conformance testing machinery.
When there is more market value in breaking a technology than following it,
what is your answer? I find it hard to believe that Microsoft implemented
that broken MIME because its engineers can' t read RFCs or did not bother
to. It seems to me that we do need to put non-conformance on the spotlight.
When a flaw is qualified as a flaw and made public, it may embarass its
creators enough to make them change it. Left alone, the flaw will probably
become a feature.
Cheers -- Ed Gerck
PS: In my opinion, the oft repeated claim that the IETF "has no legal"
status or existence is hogwash. The unincorporated non-profit
association is a valid form of legal entity, at least in the USA.
Hmm, does the IETF pay taxes? Or is it some form of non-taxable US legal
entity?