Open Standards vs IOPS etc [was Re: BGP community based IP filtering]
ferguson at cisco.com
Fri Jan 16 13:11:36 UTC 1998
At 06:07 AM 1/16/98 -0500, Chris Layton wrote:
>Since you suggest IOPS as a body to track this issue, what do people think
>about IOPS as a pseudo-standards group. This also came up at the December
>IETF when Curtis suggested that draft-berkowitz-multirqmt document would
>not be necessary since IOPS had a draft on the same subject. The IDR WG
>seemed very sceptical of having a small closed body fill that role. How do
>people see IOPS meshing with NANOG and the operational side of IETF?
I have a little bit of a problem when people refer to IOPS as a
"standards organization." A "standards" body needs to be open.
Is IOPS an open group? No.
Can anyone in the Internet community participate? No, they have to
be a member of the collective, and pay a membership fee ranging from
between US$9500 to US$25000.
IOPS is free to define all of the operations guides that they desire,
but it can't really be referred to as a "standards organization" since
it is a private club. :-/
ObDisclaimer: Standard caveats apply. Opinions are mine.
More information about the NANOG