Kyle Lussier wrote:
But the use of a trademark, which stands for "complies with RFCs"
could be incredibly valuable.
...
I disagree that it can't be done. The question is... it *REALLY*
has to be fair, unbiased, and respected. If the IETF wanted us
to do it, we certainly would, but aren't there people with more
clout and respect in the organization who would be willing to do it?
I believe that it would be a bad idea to pursue an IETF validation of
protocol implementations, and that it would be likewise undesirable to
push for a trademark that stands for "complies with RFCs." Haven't
we learned from (or remember) the S/MIME problems??
Thus, while I disagree with certifying conformance, I see no harm and
much benefit in making non-conformance public. If there is no list
consensus at this time on how to make it public (for example, by
publishing non-conformance in a note or RFC) then at least we all
could use this list -- and specific WGs lists -- to make it public.
Cheers,
Ed Gerck