Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: IP: Microsoft breaks Mime specification

From: "Mak, L (Leen)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:46:44 +0100

> 
> I definitely agree that the IETF should be responsible for certifying
> products as "Internet Compatible".  It gives vendors something to
> shoot for.
> 

Hm, ietf going in the business of rubber stamping? Even ITU never 
considered anything like labelling products to be "ITU-compatible" .
They just publish "Recommendations". Every vendor is free to use,
bend, or ignore those Recommendations. Yet, the global phone
network (and the greater part of the global transport network carrying 
the Internet) operates according to those Recommendations ... 
Every successfull phone call proves that such voluntary standardisation
scheme, without any formal certification mechanism, can work.

Leen Mak.

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:47:51 +0000 (GMT)

> scheme, without any formal certification mechanism, can work.

Government monopoly PTOs have long implemented formal certification
mechanisms at the country level. In the US, you could only connect
Bell equipment to Bell lines. In the UK, sellers of modems had to
indicate whether they had satisfied compliance testing (green dot
vs red triangle). And what's standard about E1 vs T1 vs J1 or A-law vs
u-law?

Equipment had to be approved before use.

Voluntary standardisation didn't do a lot for US rail gauge in the
early part of last century, or US cellular later on.

L.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>