Re: [Tsvwg] RE: iSCSI: No Framing

["Brian F. G. Bidulock" <bidulock@openss7.org>]

David,

On Tue, 05 Feb 2002, Black_David@emc.com wrote:

> The result is that here and elsewhere when the IPS WG avoids Doug's
> invitation to unnecessary standardization, Doug accuses the IPS WG
> of working in secret on proprietary solutions.

What's the matter with that?  I would say that 80-90% of
those lurking on these working groups are doing exactly that:
working in secret on proprietary solutions; forming trade
secrets to embed in their implementations; and patenting
whatever the can to encumber the competition.  That's just the
way of the world.

As with any other standard body, IETF standards represent a
tenuous balance between interoperability and proprietary
implementation.  Even so, the number of proprietary (and
patented) protocols proliferate the RFC servers as
"Informational" and some even as proposed standards with
Intellectual Property claims.

I find it hard to believe that a tortuous approach that has
only short-term viability is going to have such a deterious
effect in an industry that holds the trade secret and
intellectual property rights in so high an etseem.

(I would invite Doug to re-read the copyright disclaimer
 on all RFCs.)

What will this market be fractured into?  Those with trade
secrets and those without?  Or is this a Beta vs. VHS thing?

At least the draft provides some basis for interoperability
and addresses the extent to which those taking this short-term
blind alley are willing to reveal their plans to each other.

So how will it be fractured?--Into those up the blind alley
and those in the traffic jam?

Please Doug, if there is a technical (not political) basis
on which this draft is somehow flawed, please express it.
You seem so vehemenently opposed to this draft over the
last number of months: surely there is some technical basis
upon which your first aversions were based.

If it is the protocol layer boundary violations that concern
you, what is the technical (rather than preceived market)
disadvantages of such violation?

It is only on the basis of technical or procedural error that
an appeal can be honestly and successfully lodged under the
IETF process anyway and you had certainly better air those
technical objections within the WG first.

Could you provide a summarized list of your technical
objections with proposed solutions so that others in the
WG can comment?  There might be several solutions that might
lead to improvements even at this late a stage.  It is
normally only a technical argument that will lead to concensus
here.  (I doubt that the WG chair could ask for comments on
a question concerning market fragmentation and trade secret
plots.)

--brian

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
bidulock@openss7.org
http://www.openss7.org/