[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    Re: [Tsvwg] RE: iSCSI: No Framing

    On Tue, 05 Feb 2002, 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
    Brian F. G. Bidulock


Last updated: Wed Feb 06 12:17:57 2002
8672 messages in chronological order