From: Rick Johnson <rickj@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 95 13:56:51 PDT
To: perry@piermont.com
Subject: Re: Comments on STT Spec Implementation Details
Message-ID: <9510062200.AA01491@netmail2.microsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Perry writes....

>My suggestion, which I made when Microsoft made a presentation at the
>IETF meeting in Stockholm and then had the gall to say "oh, no, we
>don't intend to publish an internet draft" is that you publish this as
>an internet draft and try to shepard it through the IETF's
>standardization process. You will, of course, be savaged, but that is
>in the interests of everyone, including you.

I talked to the two STT folks who were there.  I've also read the 
minutes of that meeting as published by Amir.  Politely, that 
particular meeting and the attempt to form a splintered variety of  WGs 
was viewed by the two STT folks attending as a pretty wild affair 
characterized by a lot of 5-10 minute speeches and the slimmest 
directional concensus.  A lot of great discussion, but low odds of 
coalescing into an effort leading to tangible results in a timely 
manner.   That doesn't mean there isn't value in putting proposals into 
the IETF standardization process, and it wasn't the content or intent 
of those people to impart that.  If we had other objectives we wouldn't 
have even bothered to go to Stockholm.

>The belief that companies can make more money by following proprietary
>solutions and imposing them on the world as standards is falling
>away.

Agreed...and not the content or intent of any comments made by the STT 
attendees at that meeting.

>It is in Microsoft's interest that the standard that is adopted
>for commerce be open, publically discussed at length, and brutally
>critiqued. Losing a bit of control in exchange for actually getting
>something that works out for you and your customers is in your interest.

Also agreed.  Want to pursue discussion in the internet community.  
Keep in mind, though, we're also obligated to deliver solutions to our 
customers in the very near term, and therefore publish the STT spec for 
those who wish to implement and interoperate with the systems we will 
deploy.  Certainly, it's reasonable and rational to want to evolve from 
that point within the guidelines of the IETF.  Based on what people's 
reaction to what we have put out for everyone to see, I'd be looking 
for comments from you all as to the most timely and beneficial course 
to pursue.  Looking forward to your input.