RE: Final pass on BOF issues for -01

["Budd, Fred" <Fred.Budd@wiltel.com>]

Well, I disagree that comments/requirements on monetary issues should
be included in an IETF document. As George stated, what it does or
doesn't cost to obtain a fix for a problem is a contractual issue. It 
has little relevant bearing to the stated objectives in section 4. Now, 
if you want to go so far as to state that all the knobs listed in the 
document should be available free of charge....     

The analogy is a flawed comparison.  Automobile manufacturers are 
forced to correct design and manufacturing flaws that increase the risk  
of personal injury or are not up to engineering regulations. They are 
also forced to provide a pre-defined express warranty period (free of 
charge) to which various lemon laws and warranty acts can be enforced, 
although actual enforcement still varies by state (in the U.S.). 
Neither situation applies to networking equipment or software today.      

If the language is left in, I'd prefer the following change:
Vendors MUST provide fixes for e.g. CERT exploits for all systems 
supported at the time the exploit is discovered. Vendors MUST NOT 
require customers to purchase support (or other) contracts in order to 
obtain exploit fixes for which no other workaround exists. 

-FB

-----Original Message-----
DH> is it ok for e.g. ford to manufacture defective product, then
DH> charge you money to get it fixed? the courts say no.