pTLA request for MICROSOFT - review closes 2 January 2002

[John Klos]

Hello,

I didn't mean to start any kind of flame war; I think I should clarify my
position.

If all prolems can be solved by just refusing to peer with any entity that
doesn't follow the spirit of the group, then what's the point of having
guidelines?

Is it really unimaginable that Microsoft could start utilising proprietary
routing and / or proprietary extensions to IPv6 that it plans to use in
the future to make only their IPv6 work with their systems? Or at least
only allow certain features over their networks? While 6bone has little to
do with protocols, this would not be in spirit of a useful 6bone.

If the operational rules and policies are irrelevant because we can just
"punish later", then there's nothing to worry about. If they do matter,
it'd be at least historically significant to have a legal agreement
stating such.

> I think Microsoft should be allowed it's pTLA. If we allow Cisco and Compaq
> then why not Microsoft? We should encourage greater participation verses
> building barriers.

Of course they should be allowed a pTLA. I think they need to commit
(legally) to being a responsible 6bone member considering their history.

> Now concerning the point that the US government can't get Microsoft to
> conform... The US government has issues getting it's own personnel and
> agencies to conform and work as team players. I believe any real world
> organization, forum, industry group, alliance, coalition has this very same
> issue.

This is the silliest argument I have heard in a long time! I'm sorry, but
are US Government agencies running illegal monopolies? Are they ignoring
court orders?

This is not an issue to be dismissed because "they're being really nice".
This is a serious issue about asking a big giant who is sometimes mean to
make sure it understands the rules, and that they will not use 6bone to
develop technologies that are intended to hurt non-MS users.

Thanks,
John Klos
Sixgirls Computing Labs