Re: Clarification of my remarks about Netscape

[db@Tadpole.COM (Doug Barnes)]

"Kipp E.B. Hickman" says:
> If you would like we can send you some brouchures for our
> products in that area.
> 

Ah, it doesn't work with existing proxies, so we have to pay
you. Whether it is your true motivation true or not, this 
apparent attempt to create a market for proprietary goods by 
disrupting standards is at the core of the bad odor that your 
company is giving off these days.

Not to mention the arrogance:

> Secondly, SSL is not an end, but a beginning. Instead of waiting 10 more years
> before the standards process gets around to inventing some old technology and
> codifying it, we have put something out. We have made the protocol public
> instead of propreitary and we have asked for critical review. Not griping.
> 

I'm the first one to agree that even the IETF _can be_ slow and 
cumbersome. But it is a far cry from typical standards bodies
(e.g. ITU, which I've had to deal with recently) in that it is
very easy to participate, the standards are freely available, 
and the process moves fairly rapidly, especially by comparison.

If you want to try to answer "what is the Internet?", more than
anything else it is a set of _standards_ for doing things in
a network of networks. When you declare standards changes by
fiat _without even an attempt_ to work with others (formally
or informally) you are going to irritate not just your competitors 
but your potential customer base (which I'm a part of.)

As a corporate culture, you folks from Netscape seem to project 
a sense of arrogance and disregard for the net culture that is
extremely irritating. And this is from someone who basically
_likes_ your product, and has happy users using it, although I've 
bumped up the priority of checking out the other commercial 
offerings in this area because of your arrogance and total 
disregard for even pro-forma cooperation with the standards process.

I'd also like to point out that, more often than not, attempts
to create proprietary "standards" by fiat don't work. To wit,
look at Microsoft's various attempts at networking.
This company has billions, and it ends up announcing, as a great
"innovation" that it is (finally) going to support TCP/IP in a
meaningful way, despite numerous abortive attempts at other
"standards". 

You point to some other technical areas where frustrated 
manufacturers split off and extended standards, but I think 
you'll find in almost every case that it was _after_ they 
had hit meaningful roadblocks with their proposed standard,
and that they worked dilligently to ensure compatability
amongst themselves and others offering the new level of
technology.  Given the history of your company, and the 
attitudes displayed here, I question whether this will 
happen with your hacks^H^H^H^H^Hextensions.

Doug