Re: WG dcoument status

[Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>]

Bert,

> 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.

(4) is satisfied by having just *one* implementation.

Ditto for (5).

Nowhere in the above there is a requirement for multiple interoperable
implementations. With this in mind, please take out the part about
"interoperability test results".

Yakov.

> 
> Bert 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yakov Rekhter [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.
> >