*> But the use of a trademark, which stands for "complies with RFCs"
*> could be incredibly valuable.
I suggest that you read RFCs 1122 and 1123 from cover to cover, and
then ponder whether the nice-sounding phrase "complies with the RFCs"
has any useful meaning. Perhaps you will begin to understand why the
IETF Way is interoperability testing, not conformance testing But you
are free to make your proposal at IAB plenary of the next IETF.
Thanks for the comments Bob! I think there is very much
a misconception as to what I am proposing.
As I've mentioned, I absolutely, positively do not want
conformance testing, of any kind!
Purely an IETF endorsed logo. If you *want* to use a logo, you send
in your $50-$100, sign the agreement that says your product works
with the RFCs, and you get permission to use the trademark.
Procedures would have to be in place to provide a "logo yank"
process in eggregious abuses. It shouldn't be easy to yank
a logo, it should be thoroughly peer reviewed. I wouldn't
even mind if it took 12 months+ to yank a logo.
What I am fundamentally looking for here is a procedure by which
there is a control mechanism for defining a vendor trying to
be interoperable (which is a huge consumer, customer, and vendor
benefit) vs. a vendor that is using taking standards and abusing
them in the marketplace.
When you yank the logo, it's not like you can't still sell
your product.
It's just for us, as a vendor, having something like this allows us
to contract to supporting "interoperable" third party vendors that
are well behaved, and we get an "opt-out" on vendors whom the
IETF community has put a big red "X" on.
Zero, and I repeat Zero conformance testing. The reality is,
standards and RFCs are going to get it only "mostly right"
the majority of the time, and standards need to change.
But the good faith intentions of a vendor towards interoperability
should not change.
The very simple logo idea I am proposing is purely a visible rating
system at to the good faith intentions of a vendor to be interoperable.
I am just saying, we need to reward intoperable vendors with the
logo, and give CIOs the option to sign deals with vendors who
are truly faithful to standards.
I think this idea could help all of the markets significantly in
terms of giving everyone a visible mark of interoperability. You
get the mark until you absolutely, positively aggregiously abuse
it. For 99% of the companies supporting IETF this will be
extraordinarily valuable, and help all of us sell our products
as well as get some money to have some IETF parties. :)
This will only be a pain in the butt for the 1% of particularly
powerful vendors who are unwilling to support IETF standards.
Kyle Lussier
AutoNOC LLC