Re: WG dcoument status

[Lou Berger <lberger@movaz.com>]

I'll send the form to the ccamp list and post a URL.

Lou

At 11:49 AM 3/1/2002, Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be wrote:

>Lou,
>
>Could you please send me a form,
>
>Many thanks,
>- dimitri.
>
>John Drake wrote:
> >
> > Lou,
> >
> > Please send me a form.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > John
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lou Berger [<mailto:lberger@movaz.com>mailto:lberger@movaz.com]
> > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 8:20 AM
> > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> > Cc: Yakov Rekhter; Kireeti Kompella; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: WG dcoument status
> >
> > 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>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.
> > > >
>
>--
>Papadimitriou Dimitri
>E-mail : dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
>Website: 
><http://www.rc.bel.alcatel.be/~papadimd/index.html>http://www.rc.bel.alcatel.be/~papadimd/index.html 
>
>Address: Alcatel - Optical NA, Fr. Wellesplein, 1
>          B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
>Phone:   Work: +32 3 2408491 - Home: +32 2 3434361