Rick Collins wrote in a message to David Bowerman:
DB> That really doesn't seem to matter to Richard.  He is quite willing to 
DB> blame every other company for any problems with interop with Rockwell 
DB> products. Craig Ford has posted on several occasions about problems with 
DB> Rockwell's implementation of various features.  Richard's only
DB> response is to the effect that every other modem manufacturer is 
DB> responsible for modifing their implementations to allow for 
DB> Rockwell's idiosyncracies and non-standard implementations.
 RC> Indeed.  I've commented (snidely) elsewhere that if I were _really_
 RC> nasty, I'd suggest Rockwell doesn't want to engage in interop
 RC> testing because they (Rockwell) would possibly be put in the
 RC> unenviable position of having _two_ other implementers telling them
 RC> (Rockwell) that their (Rockwell's) implementation was "non
 RC> compliant".
 RC> But, I'm not nasty.  We all know that. :-)
And the rumours that Rockwell is not going to engage in interop testing on 
V.90 due to Rockwell's lack of any code to test are simply rumours.
From the news stories, it would seem that 3Com and Lucent are "rushing to 
market" with their modems/chipsets after interop testing between their units. 
 Seems a trifle strange here that while Lucent managed to cooperate with 
Rockwell in combining their two 56K protocols to form K56Flex, we are now 
expected to believe that Lucent was not willing to do interop testing with 
Rockwell?  Perhaps Rockwell is expecting 3Com and Lucent to wait to do 
interop testing with the V.90 recommendation as interpreted by Rockwell 
before shipping any production units?
Personally, I don't think that any of the 3 are lily white -- 3Com/USR again 
jumped the gun with their advertising compliant modems before the final draft 
was completed while Rockwell's representative seems to be blaming everyone 
else for the lack of interop testing.
Back to the kindergarten, folks.
Regards,
       David
--- timEd/2 1.10+
---------------