At 06:07 AM 1/16/98 -0500, Chris Layton wrote:

Since you suggest IOPS as a body to track this issue, what do people think about IOPS as a pseudo-standards group. This also came up at the December IETF when Curtis suggested that draft-berkowitz-multirqmt document would not be necessary since IOPS had a draft on the same subject. The IDR WG seemed very sceptical of having a small closed body fill that role. How do people see IOPS meshing with NANOG and the operational side of IETF?

I have a little bit of a problem when people refer to IOPS as a "standards organization." A "standards" body needs to be open. Is IOPS an open group? No. Can anyone in the Internet community participate? No, they have to be a member of the collective, and pay a membership fee ranging from between US$9500 to US$25000. IOPS is free to define all of the operations guides that they desire, but it can't really be referred to as a "standards organization" since it is a private club. :-/ - paul ObDisclaimer: Standard caveats apply. Opinions are mine.