On 17 Sep 2008, at 18:42, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Of course none of the SDOs that I work with want to see incompatible
versions. But this turns the issue on its head. Open source and open
standards deal with the freedom to do things, even though we might
discourage people to take us up on that offer of freedom.
I have not followed this thread wherever it originated, and I have
never been so much as tempted to read the IPR wg archives. But I'm
going to reply anyway, in the grand tradition of this list.
I think the *whole point* of a standard is to restrict how things are
done, in order to promote interoperability. Complaining about such
restrictions makes no sense to me if interop is a desired goal (and if
it's not, surely we can all go home).
It's no use to me if someone sells a product that claims to support
"SMTP" if it turns out that the SMTP in question has been modified,
replacing HELO with GDAY or some other nonsense that stops "SMTP"
talking to "SMTP".
The point you made about code is surely related to *implementation*,
not *specification*.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf