begin risky.vbs
<6099254.IYlMtA2Cua@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Wireless Wars Update
>
> ,----[Quote ]
>| The IEEE itself shut down that task group last June to conduct an
>| investigation, after charges of conflict of interest and favoritism
>| on the part of the chair, as well as stacking the vote by some
>| members, were leveled. The IEEE standards board conducted an
>| investigation, and found "a lack of transparency, possible
>| 'dominance,' and other irregularities in the Working Group."
> `----
At the risk of pissing off Mark, this is where I think the IETF and
RFC's are excellent. Before a protocol (ie standard) can become an
official RFC there must be 2 independant implementations. Almost
invariably this has led to at least one open source implementation.
The Internet wouldn't be what it is today without that requirement.
Organisations like the CCITT fail in this respect. CHILL is a classic
example of something agreed by committee but full of compromises. The
RFC method works because it is the implementers that decide how a
standard should be. When I worked on real-time telecoms systems we
were always happy when we had a contract with BT. Why? Because they
translated CCITT specs into English. :-)
--
I've asked time and time again for people to prove that I primarily spout
FUD. - Funkenbusch (COLA's comedian), Sat, 2 Dec 2006
|
|
