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

From: "Kyle Lussier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:18:03 -0800

> Prorated fee based on the companies er stock ratings. the richer the co.
> the more they pay.
>  that way mom-pop co. can play too.

Let's be clear here.. the goal isn't to punish any one particular
company either big or small.

Big companies have craploads of money and it won't matter that
much to them what it costs anyhow.  It mostly matters whether
customers will want to see the logo.  That's the important part.

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

The goal is to enforce public standards, and there doesn't need
to be a major profit center around that, nor should there be.  I
like the very low cost $100/year/active product to use the logo.

That'll generate enough income to support any necessary application 
processing / mailings plus 50% into a mutual fund for a legal
defense fund to protect the process.  If it got 100,000 products
registered with annual renewal, you're looking at a $10m operating
budget, which is more than enough to support a full staff, marketing
of the logo, cover a legal defense fund, etc.

Bigger vendors also have more products, so that would mean more
$100 registrations.

I disagree that it can't be done.  The question is... it *REALLY*
has to be fair, unbiased, and respected.  If the IETF wanted us
to do it, we certainly would, but aren't there people with more
clout and respect in the organization who would be willing to do it?

Kyle Lussier
AutoNOC LLC

---

From: Ed Gerck <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 09:25:00 -0800

Kyle Lussier wrote:

> ...

I believe that it would be  a bad idea to pursue an IETF validation of
protocol  implementations, and that it would be likewise undesirable to
push for a trademark that stands for "complies with RFCs."  Haven't
we learned from (or remember) the S/MIME problems??

Thus, while I disagree with certifying conformance, I see no harm and
much benefit in making non-conformance public.  If there is no list
consensus at this time on how to make it public (for example, by
publishing non-conformance in  a note or RFC) then at least we all
could use this list -- and specific WGs lists -- to make it public.

Cheers,

Ed Gerck