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

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 17:33:43 -0800 (PST)

*> 
  *> But the use of a trademark, which stands for "complies with RFCs"
  *> could be incredibly valuable.
  *> 
Kyle,

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.

This discussion is in a loop.

Bob Braden

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 21:20:40 -0800

I fear that I made a notable mistake in the original suggestion that 
we somehow deal with "Conformance".  In fact, I agree entirely that 
the issue of concern is "Interoperability".

As I have noted before, I also agree that the IETF is the wrong place 
to deal with the problem by serving as the judge and jury.

Whatever might be done needs to be a Market Based Initiative.

My apologies for setting the wrong course...\Stef