Reality IT: So You Think You're NAC Compliant? Think Again: Page 2 of 3

SEAL OF APPROVAL
IT pros needn't look far for instances where the presence of a logo program has driven a market--and where the lack of one has had a stifling effect. SIP has no logo program, though ironically the SIP Forum does compatibility testing. The event is called SIPit, but the Forum refuses to publish its findings. The result? Such a limited compatible feature set that proprietary protocols still dominate the VoIP market.

In contrast, the Wi-Fi Alliance requires its members to submit products to a functional, albeit somewhat limited, set of tests. When was the last time your laptop didn't seamlessly work with any Wi-Fi infrastructure you encountered?

So why don't vendors get moving? Both Cisco and Microsoft say that the myriad configuration options possible with NAC make exhaustively vetting conformance impossible. They contend it's best not to promise something that can't be delivered--the same argument made by the SIP Forum. Members of the TCG/TNC say the idea has come up, but so far, nothing concrete is in the offing.

I know testing is complex since it's what I do most of the day. And exhaustively checking boxes on a feature matrix isn't what's needed. Testing the most common feature sets, as the Wi-Fi Alliance does, would be immeasurably better than what IT groups get now.

Interoperability conformance claims, no matter how well-intentioned, are just that: claims. Bake-offs offer some proof of conformance, but the testing is done under controlled conditions, with engineers and developers twisting the knobs. They don't reflect today's real-world data center. The time has come for framework owners to institute conformance testing so that customers will know they're buying a workable system. NAC is too important to leave interoperability to chance.