Re: WG document status

[Loa Andersson <loa.andersson@utfors.se>]

Sasha,

given that I haven't researched the process enough, this
may be just my own opinions.
But I think that 1264 is still valid, it came out of the
concern of the routing AD at the time that errors in routing
protocls might have much more drastic implications than an
error in an application.

I think it would be good if our current ADs could give their
view on this. Also whether the routing area requirements are
applicable for the Sub-IP area.

/Loa

Sasha Vainshtein wrote:

> Loa and all,
> Does not RFC 2026 overrule the previous requirements, 
> like RFC 1264? And it does not require (Section 4.1.1) 
> even a SINGLE implementation for a Proposed Standard 
> even if it states that "the IESG may require one and if 
> existence of implementation and operational experience 
> are both declared "highly desirable" and would "represent 
> a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard designation".
> 
> With best regards,
>                                    Sasha Vainshtein
> email:     sasha@axerra.com <mailto:sasha@axerra.com> 
> tel:       +972-3-7659993 (office)
>            +972-8-9254948 (res.)
>            +972-58-674833 (cell.)
>  
> 
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa.andersson@utfors.se]
>>Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 5:26 PM
>>To: Lazer, Monica A, ALCNS
>>Cc: Yakov Rekhter; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); ccamp@ops.ietf.org; 
>>Brungard, Deborah A, ALASO; Afferton, Thomas S (Tom), ALCNS; 
>>Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO
>>Subject: Re: WG document status
>>
>>
>>All,
>>
>>hopefully someone can shed light on this, there seems to be a
>>contradiction somewhere, if "general" is intended to be understood
>>as applicable to Proposed, Draft and Standard equally, what is
>>the reason to have lesser requirements for Proposed and Draft.
>>
>>Or is that "general" is something that the end result and the "steps"
>>in 1264 is what we have to achieve on our way there?
>>
>>
>>For PS there is a requirement of at least two independently written
>>implementations, but not on interoperability? Is that it?
>>
>>/Loa
>>
>>Lazer, Monica A, ALCNS wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yakov,
>>>Bert,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>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".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>RFC 1264 also says:
>>>
>>>"3.0 General Requirements
>>>
>>>   4) Generally, a number of interoperable implementations must
>>>      exist.  At least two must be written independently.
>>>
>>>5.0 Requirements for Draft Standard
>>>
>>>   3) Two or more interoperable implementations must exist. 
>>>
>> At least
>>
>>>      two must be written independently.
>>>
>>>6.0 Requirements for Standard
>>>
>>>   3) Three or more interoperable implementations must 
>>>
>>exist.  At least
>>
>>>      two must be written independently."
>>>
>>>We would like to insist on 2 or more interoperable 
>>>
>>implementations being a requirement.  Without 
>>interoperability, any proprietary protocol does just the 
>>same, so we don't need an RFC for that.
>>
>>>
>>>Monica A. Lazer
>>>Advanced Transport Technology and Architecture Planning
>>>
>>>(908) 234 8462
>>>mlazer@att.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>-- 
>>Loa Andersson
>>Chief Architect,
>>Utfors Research, Architecture and Future Lab (URAX)
>>Utfors AB
>>Råsundavägen 12
>>Box 525, 169 29 Solna
>>Office          +46 8 5270 2000
>>Office direct   +46 8 5270 5038
>>Mobile          +46 70 848 5038
>>Email           loa.andersson@utfors.se
>>WWW             www.utfors.se
>>
>>
> 


-- 
Loa Andersson
Chief Architect,
Utfors Research, Architecture and Future Lab (URAX)
Utfors AB
Råsundavägen 12
Box 525, 169 29 Solna
Office          +46 8 5270 2000
Office direct   +46 8 5270 5038
Mobile          +46 70 848 5038
Email           loa.andersson@utfors.se
WWW             www.utfors.se