Re: WG dcoument status

[Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>]

Bert,

> > Bert Wijnen (AD) has suggested that there should be an implementation
> > statement before these move on to IETF Last Call; the WG chairs and
> > draft editors agreed.
> 
> Pls note that we discussed this in the SUB-IP Directorate and that a
> wider set of people agreed. The reason why we do this is based on earlier
> practice in the RTG area in that a protocol that touches the core of the
> network, that we do want to see implementation/interoperability reports
> at the PS stage as opposed to at the DS stage.
> 
> This report is to be prepared by the WG (chairs). And it needs to be sent
> to iesg-secretary who will put it online on the IETF webpages, so that
> during IETF Last Call people can actually look at the reports.
> 
> Please also not that some people worred (back at SLC meeting) that this
> might delay the docs too much. I would like to remind you that it is now
> 2.5 months later, and I have still not seen any signs of such a report.
> So don't blame the process if things get delayed because of a report not
> showing up.... In other words... it might be good if people start to
> report implementation and interoperability test reults.

Please note that in the RTG area (rfc1264) there is no requirement
for a Proposed Standard to have (a) more than one implementation, and
(b) for these implementations to be interoperable.

Yakov.