Subject: Re: Draft: IETF listing of open source implementations of IETF specs

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 22:54:01 -0700 (MST)

>  From the discussion on the IETF list, some rather clear points of 
> consensus seem to have emerged.  The two that I discern the easiest are:

I disagree with the claim that consensus exists; count the respondents.
Moreover, the latest proposal is different from the original or even from
what was proposed a little while ago.  It doesn't seem cricket to claim
consensus exists before the target stops moving.

> 1.  It would be quite useful to list references to open source implementations

It's usefulness has not been established, except by ignoring the problems
that afflict the current lists.  I don't see how anything that the IETF
might do would affect the status quo, other than to offer a vanity listing
that would at best be an advertising medium and IETF endorsement for
consultants and vendors.

Someone mentioned http://www.ietf.org/IESG/implementation.html.
One of the few open source implementations of an IETF protocol among those
pages is my rewrite of Sam Leffler's ancient BSD `routed`, mentioned on
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/RIPV2-implementation under "FreeBSD, NetBSD".
I guess I don't qualify as unlikely to benefit from the advertising.
Still, I don't like this idea.

> ...
> Creation of "open source" implementations of IETF specifications is often a 
> major contribution to development of support and success for IETF 
> standards.  The decision to create such  implementations, and the effort to 
> create and maintain them, is entirely through private means, outside the 
> IETF.  Without endorsing or certifying such software, but in the interest 
> of assisting access to open source software for IETF specifications, the 
> IETF will maintain a listing of such software.

Why would the IETF listing to contain fewer stale and more good references
than the search engines?  How would an IETF listing differ from the search
engines's, other than the endorsement by the IETF?  As others have said,
any disavows of IETF endorsement would verge on disingenous.  They would
be just as effective as the disclaimers on Internet Drafts that prevent
their abuse...NOT!

> a)  Purports to implement IETF specifications having reached a status of 
> Draft Standard, or better

Why only Draft Standard?  By the time a protocol gets to Draft, there are
usually plenty of commercial implementations.  Research and educational
outfits can often get free copies, in vendor dreams of market share (and
"mind share").  That's also when an IETF endorsement would have the most
commercial value for vendors and consultants.

> b)  Is made available by an organization which agrees to long-term, on-line 
> availability to the source

What is long-term availability?  Please cite one or two examples of free
source repositories that has been on-line and permanently open.   I can
list a lot that weren't, including RIPv2 & OSPF (Gated), PPP, HTTP, and
most of TCP (with the death of BSD/CSRG).  The solitary open repository
I can think of that can be called long term is for NTP at udel.edu, and
it certainly does not need an IETF endorsement or listing.

> c) Permits direct use of the software for research and education, at no charge

And so permit charging an arm and a leg for all other uses of the IETF
endorsed code?  That's a definition of "open source"?  You should at least
let the IETF get a share of the gross on the sale of the code it endorses.

Are you sure this isn't just a way to advertise consultants and vendors?

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: Peter Dawson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 18:46:02 +0400

Vernon Schryver wrote:

> what was proposed a little while ago.

what do you mean the latest proposal is different ??

Dave Crocker wrote:

> The IETF process does not require development of a 'reference'
> implementation, but their creation is often a major
> contribution to
> development of support and success for our standards.  The
> decision to
> <trimmed>

> It's usefulness has not been established,

Agreed , but unless it has been established theuse or usefullness
cannot be ascertained !!

> I don't see how anything that the IETF might do would affect
> the status quo,

It would be......

1) A complimentary process within the IETF
   standardization process.
2) Would provide a showcase of results of/by the IETF
3) A usefull resource for other coders / implementars
4) The IETF should 'reference' the code as it is to do
   with IETF Protocal and the standardization process
5) The most obvious place to look for support code for
   a protocol would be the IETF archeives
6) It would encourage the comparison of code and standards
   by more people
7) if the reference is held on some other ftp server,
   the server changes hands/companies etc. Hence,
   reference's also. So a stable point is required.

> than the search engines?

It would be centeral point for all acheiving/ trees to
bemaintained.... yes.. it would take time and effort to make
it the de-facto site for networking reference ! why not ??

> Why only Draft Standard?

Yes.. I agree why stop at draft standards .. go the
wholehog..from ID to STD ..make a corresponding entry on
for repositories  each stage..

>   The solitary open repository

why should it.. udel.edu is not a standards org

> let the IETF get a share of the gross on the sale of the code

IETF is not coding.. it is implemenatars of ID/STD who code...so
whyshould ietf get anything out of sales !

> Are you sure this isn't just a way to advertise consultants and

is the IETF is endorsing /advertising consultants vendors ?? is
udel.edu
adverting indivuals and consulants ??

/pete

---

From: Peter Dawson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 18:46:02 +0400

It would be......

/pete