RE: WG dcoument status

[Lou Berger <lberger@movaz.com>]

hmm,  looks like all that is missing is a formal statement on 4.
My guess is that just making a statement that one exists (and it does) 
isn't sufficient.  I volunteer to pull together an implementation 
report.  I'll send out a form later today, collect the info and post the 
results.

Lou

At 11:02 AM 3/1/2002, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

>Mmm.. RFC1264 says on page 4, pls note items 4) and 5):
>
>
>   4.0 Requirements for Proposed Standard
>
>    1) Documents specifying the Protocol and its Usage.  The
>       specification for the routing protocol must be well written such
>       that independent, interoperable implementations can be developed
>       solely based on the specification.  For example, it should be
>       possible to develop an interoperable implementation without
>       consulting the original developers of the routing protocol.
>
>    2) A Management Information Base (MIB) must be written for the
>       protocol.  The MIB does not need to submitted for Proposed
>       Standard at the same time as the routing protocol, but must be
>       at least an Internet Draft.
>
>    3) The security architecture of the protocol must be set forth
>       explicitly.  The security architecture must include mechanisms for
>       authenticating routing messages and may include other forms of
>       protection.
>
>    4) One or more implementations must exist.
>
>    5) There must be evidence that the major features of the protocol
>       have been tested.
>
>    6) No operational experience is required for the routing protocol
>       at this stage in the standardization process.
>
>Bert
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yakov Rekhter [<mailto:yakov@juniper.net>mailto:yakov@juniper.net]
> > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 2:58 PM
> > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> > Cc: Kireeti Kompella; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: WG dcoument status
> >
>
>.. snip ..
>
> > > 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.
> >