On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Paul Kraus <p...@kraus-haus.org> wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Bob Friesenhahn > <bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > > > The method the IETF uses seems to be particularly immune to vendor > > interference. Vendors who want to participate in defining an > interoperable > > standard can achieve substantial success. Vendors who only want their > own > > way encounter deafening silence and isolation. > > There have been a number of RFC's effectively written by one > vendor in order to be able to claim "open standards compliance", the > biggest corporate offender in this regard, but clearly not the only > one, is Microsoft. The next time I run across one of these RFC's I'll > make sure to forward you a copy. > > The only one that comes to mind immediately was the change to the > specification of what characters were permissible in DNS records to > include underscore "_". This was specifically to support Microsoft's > existing naming convention. I am NOT saying that was a bad change, but > that it was a change driven by ONE vendor. > > > Except it wasn't just Microsoft at all. There were three vendors on the original RFC, and one of the authors was Paul Vixie... the author of BIND. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2782.txt You should probably do a bit of research before throwing out claims like that to try to shoot someone down. --Tim
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
