John C Klensin wrote:
Ed,
I've put this back on the list because I've deliberately been
quiet so far and I only want to go through this once, rather
than getting drawn into a debate which, like many of these
things, goes around in circles.
Back on the list is fine for me. Thank you for your thoughtful
response. My option would actually be "Case 3" in your list
of two cases. So, let me add it, inlined below.
Case 1: The IETF (or IAB, or Secretariat, or something
[else] in the name of the IETF or ISOC) exercises
editorial judgement about what goes onto that
non-conformance list.
....
Not useful, as you point out. The IETF must have no power
about what is written.
Case 2: We provide a publication forum for claims and
counter-claims that would likely turn into a flame-fest
with little value to anyone and no real case for "the
IETF" getting involved.
Not useful. Who wants flame wars and high-noise traffic?
Now, let me summarize Case 3 -- which I briefly outlined before:
Case 3. The IETF discusses and provides a simple, text-based, format
for communications sent to a set of Non-Conformance Lists divided
in areas. All NCL communications must have headers that match the
predefined format, and are parsed/routed for their purposes, but no
body text
(where the communication actually resides, the rest is addressing
and
structure) is ever parsed. Communications that do not match the
format,
are rejected -- after all, they are non-conforming. Subscribers to
each
NCL will receive the respective postings, that may also be publicly
read
in web archives. Only subscribers to each NCL may post. There are no
replies to NCL communications. All communications are the exclusive
responsibility of the authors, with an IETF hosting content
disclaimer similar
to those used by webhosting services. Communications expire in one
year,
but may be freely renewed after expiration. Once posted, a
communication
may be deleted by request from the poster herself, by the IETF or
when it
expires. It may only be deleted by the IETF if it is clearly spam
or if there is
a legal order to do so. The hosting content disclaimer, complete
absence
of editorial control in technical matters and yielding to legal
orders should
avoid the liability issues, but legal counsel must be consulted
before the
service starts. The NCL should be free for mirroring elsewhere.
Since all NCL communications are under the exclusive responsability of their
own authors, both to post AND delete, the authors are thereby encouraged to be
responsible ... or else. For additional details, see the posting below.
Comments?
Cheers,
Ed Gerck
--On Thursday, 24 January, 2002 04:51 -0800 Ed Gerck
<egerck(_at_)nma(_dot_)com> wrote:
[off-list to avoid more overload]
Even though conformance certification would be useful, it is
not IMO all that we need. And is not what the IETF
could/should do -- as there seems to be a consensus.
Much easier to implement, and perhaps much more useful in terms
of quick user feedback, is to introduce a public
non-conformance list (NCL). The NCL would make no promises to
the future (unlike a conformance list), would not imply
liability (because it exerts no power), and could be hosted by
the IETF as listserver a (perhaps divided by area). It could
work in a way very similar to the ID mechanism -- which also
carries no liability to the IETF.
As I commented in the list, the NCL could help make a good
selling point even for those companies listed in the NCL --
"Look, we had six NC complaints and we fixed them all! Our
product has no current NC complaint." The NCL could also build
a good feedback channel for WGs, and standard revision.
Looking at the IETF, vendors and users, a NCL would be a
win-win-win, IMO.
To contrast, a conformance certification program is much
heavier, slower in response, has potentially large legal
liabilities, and is essentially a forward promise that is
very hard to control.
Cheers,
Ed Gerck