At 04:24 AM 10/30/2007, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> At 04:48 PM 10/29/2007, Simon Josefsson wrote: >>"Eric Burger" <eburger@xxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > One interesting side effect of the existence of an open source >> > implementation of a protocol is monoculture. We ran into a problem in >> > ifax year ago when it turned out that all eight "independent" >> > implementations all relied on the same library, thus rendering the >> > "independent" implementations label difficult, to say the least. Why >> > were there no independent implementations? Because in this case, the >> > open source implementation was pretty good, and it was not worth >> > investing in a proprietary implementation. The result here has a really >> > bad side effect for the IETF: if there is a good open source, free >> > implementation, there will be no second implementation, resulting in it >> > being impossible for the standard to progress. >> >>But that is how it is supposed to work! If there is only one >>implementation, a standard is not mature enough to move to DS. You need >>to have at least two, preferably several more, completely independent >>implementations in order to quality-test a standard. > > but why does one or both have to be open source? > > Why can't both be commercial? DS designates a mature standard. If you read the requirements in RFC 2026 for a mature standard it is clear that few of the modern IETF protocols live up to that standard -- you need to demonstrate interoperability between two completely independent implementations of _all_ features in the protocol standard. Another (existing) requirement is that any patent licenses needs to be obtained through separate processes. I believe that a good way to demonstrate that the patent license process works is to require that a free software implementation exists. I strongly believe it should be possible to participate on the Internet without paying a software patent tax to some organizations.
I believe you are arguing that the ends justify the means. In other words, because all the licensing has to be worked out (to become a DS), you believe a free implementation is the answer. I say it is not. Two commercial organizations can work out licensing and comply with this requirement - but you don't want that to be acceptable. I hold that this is what I'm referring to as "bad for the IETF" because corporations will either start involving themselves less in the IETF (directly affecting the IETF's revenue - which is already too low, and probably adversely affecting corporate sponsorship of meetings - which is already hard to acquire), and/or have fewer corporate participants care about DS and FS RFCs, because there is no incentive for them to do the work.
BTW - if you believe a free (cost-wise) implementation be mandatory for elevation to DS, why don't you suggest the text be changed to say that?
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf