Bob Hinden wrote: > Ran, > >> Proprietary is a commonly used term to describe something that >> does >> not have a full, complete, and open specification -- which is the >> current state of IS-IS. Now folks (including me) are trying to fix >> that issue by publishing sundry non-standard RFCs on how the as-deployed >> IS-IS really works (which effort is to be applauded). But the >> bottom-line >> remains that *today* the as-deployed IS-IS and the documented IS-IS >> aren't the same. I wish they were. > > > I am glad to hear this activity is going on. > > Regarding your definition of "proprietary". From Merriam-Webster > Online at http://www.m-w.com/ : > > Main Entry: 1pro·pri·e·tary > Pronunciation: pr&-'prI-&-"ter-E > Function: noun > Inflected Form(s): plural -tar·ies > Date: 15th century > 1 : one that possesses, owns, or holds exclusive right to something; > specifically : PROPRIETOR 1 > 2 : something that is used, produced, or marketed under exclusive legal > right of the inventor or maker; specifically : a drug (as a patent > medicine) that is protected by secrecy, patent, or copyright against > free competition as to name, product, composition, or process of > manufacture > 3 : a business secretly owned by and run as a cover for an intelligence > organization > > This matches my view that proprietary has more to do with ownership than > the availability of open specifications. A protocol can have open > specifications, but still be proprietary. For example prior to Sun > Microsystems giving change control of NFS and RPC to the IETF, NFS and > RPC had open specifications (and there were independent inter-operable > implementations), but were still proprietary. "open" is ambiguous: (A) visible, i.e., documented (PDF and PS qualify) (B) able to be modified (PDF and PS do not qualify) E.g., Adobe's PDF and PostScript are both (A) but not (B). "proprietary" can (as per definition above) apply to either, and thus cannot be used to exclusively denote case (A). Joe