-=> Quoting Craig Ford to Richard Town <=-
 RT> It's the server market that the suits are getting all hot 'n
 RT> bothered about IMO.  How can existing vested commercial interests
 RT> be maintained? 
 CF> As it has always been maintained.... by adding more features than the
 CF> other vendors, or by offering more attractive pricing for equivialent
 CF> merchandise.
Let's hope it's not x2>v90 vs. K56flex>V90
 CF> As you well know, ITU-T recommendations are not cook books.
I too don't care how interop is achieved.  Just that it is.
 CF> They do
 CF> not prescribe the techniques of building modems, rather they detail the
 CF> behavior that modems conforming to the recommendations shall have. A
 CF> great deal of the implementation of a recommendation is left to
 CF> descretion and ingenuity, and some aspects are entirely optional.
Yes.  But that does not mean that it's permissable for a V* complient
product to be unable to connect with another V* complient product.  If so
then ITU(t) is fair game for constructive criticism.
 CF> The purpose of interop teting is to iron out incompatabilities between
 CF> the various implementaions of a recommendation.
That's what I'd always thought.  However posts to USR_MODEMS (and the UK
equivalent echoes) seems not to achieve this.   One wonders whether USR
beta testers ever even _talk_ to others...  FYI UK Courier's .7778 was a
result of co-operation.   Marketing-wise it showed up some modem makes for
not offering 244 byte or greater LAP-M block size, and SREJ; MNPn and
extended V42, etc
rgdZ
Richard
--- FMail/386 1.02
---------------