[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: ISO and the Standards Golden Hammer (was Re: You

• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Subject: Re: ISO and the Standards Golden Hammer (was Re: You call that a standard?)
• From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
• Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:23:09 -0400
• Cc: Ken North <kennorth@s...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE03F9F744@h...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE03F9F744@h...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040421

> As I asked Dare, would you agree that if the following 
> is asked, a better deal results:
> 
> 1.  It is ISO standard (which has a specific meaning) 
>     but created by technical committees from consortia 
>     (not the marketing guys who go to committee meetings 
>     to represent their bosses' viewpoint).

No, this does not necessarily make a better deal.  I think Robin's 
message gave a great deal of information.  Here's an example I know 
about.  DCE was created by a handful of technologists back when OSF 
stood for "Oppose Sun Forever." :)  Once the initial technology 
providers were chosen by OSF and some of their invited consultants, DCE 
RPC was created (by Apollo(-->HP) and Digital).  OSF provided 
technology, and developed specifications so anyone could implement 
without licensing the reference source.  It worked: because of the legal 
frameworks involved at the time, Microsoft didn't buy a license but 
implemented from the spec and called it DCOM.  It completely 
interoperates with DCE RPC.

OSF took the specs and brought them to X/Open.  They were put aon a 
fast-track process; the primary criteria for fast track, at the time, 
was "will you pay X/Open $x/page to handle the editorial work."

 From there, X/Open submitted it (through AFNOR, I think) as a 
fast-track to ISO..  It quickly became an ISO standard.  I don't know if 
Corba IIOP/GIOP ever got to ISO.  But for many years, perhaps more than 
a decade, the only wire-protocol RPC system that's an ISO standard is 
DCE RPC.

BFD. :)


> 2.  Is Royalty-free by dint of a signed participation 
>     agreement.

If I'm purchasing, as opposed to implementing, I probably don't care. 
Yes, I *might* have fewer vendors to choose from, but in my mind "ISO 
standard" equates to "the big boys" anyway.  As long as there exists one 
vendor that meets my needs, the patent portfolios are an implementation 
detail that need not concern me.

> 3.  Comes with conformance tests and a test mark (a 
>     formal variation of a trade mark).

Yes, this is the most important of your three criteria.  In my very 
limited experiences, X/Open (now The Open Group) were among the most 
comprehensive branding/conformance in this area, although the Windows 
and Novell logo/branding programs are good.

	/r$

-- 
Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology                           http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway   http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
XML Security Overview  http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html

• References:
  • RE: ISO and the Standards Golden Hammer (was Re: You call that a standard?)
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: ISO and the Standards Golden Hammer (was Re: You call that a standard?)
• Next by Date: Re: ISO and the Standards Golden Hammer (was Re: You call that a standard?)
• Previous by thread: Re: ISO and the Standards Golden Hammer (was Re: You call that a standard?)
• Next by thread: Re: ISO and the Standards Golden Hammer (was Re: You call that a standard?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread