Subject: [Dime] DiME Interop & NDAs

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 15:43:02 +0200

Some folks had questions about possible NDAs for the upcoming interop.
I need to gauge what you all want.

One option is no NDA. 

There would be no identification of who has what bug is to be done. This
is essentially what SIPIT does. The purpose of the interop is to
         a. Check the correctness of implementations
         b. Gauge the quality of the RFC being tested.

The second one in my mind is more important and to expose the flaws in
document is necessary to disclose bugs/confusions/errors after the
event, without explicitly identifying the implementation affected. When
a anomaly shows up in one implementation it is a bug, if it shows up in
multiple implementations, frequently it is a documentation issue but
sometimes it is because an implementor copies the behavior of another
implementation.

We encourage people to show up with pre-release code. If some external
people demand to know which implementation failed what and claim it is
their RIGHT to know, we tell them to get lost. 

Choice two would be:

Use the NDA that is also used by the Connectathon
(<http://www.connectathon.org/>). Please find it at
<http://www.ist-mome.org/events/interop/MOME_Interop_NDA.pdf>.

A problem with NDAs is that you need them in order to get industrial
partners participating, but every participant wants a different NDA (at
least their legal departments).

The Connectathon NDA has the advantage that it already has been signed
by almost every big network equipment manufacturer. Usually, this
signature required a check by the company's legal department.

I'd prefer option one, but would that prevent anyone from actually
attending?

John

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

---

From: David Lehmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 09:49:57 -0500

As with all IETF interops, these events are 100% engineering events and 
not marketing/sales events.  It is run by geeks and for geeks.  :-)    
As John noted, the primary purpose is to solidify the protocol.  
However, each participating company benefits by being able to evaluate 
its own implementation.

No report will be issued which reports any bugs/weaknesses in any 
company's implementation. Sorry, no ribbons/medals will be given. :-) 
The 2006 Olympics are over!

-- 

David Lehmann
Ulticom, Inc.
http://www.ulticom.com