[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: WG document status
- To: 'Loa Andersson' <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Lazer, Monica A, ALCNS" <email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: WG document status
- From: Sasha Vainshtein <Sasha@AXERRA.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 17:59:21 +0200
- Cc: Yakov Rekhter <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, "Brungard, Deborah A, ALASO" <email@example.com>, "Afferton, Thomas S (Tom), ALCNS" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO" <email@example.com>
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,
email: firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com>
tel: +972-3-7659993 (office)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 5:26 PM
> To: Lazer, Monica A, ALCNS
> Cc: Yakov Rekhter; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); email@example.com;
> Brungard, Deborah A, ALASO; Afferton, Thomas S (Tom), ALCNS;
> Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO
> Subject: Re: WG document status
> 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?
> 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
> >>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
> > firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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 email@example.com
> WWW www.utfors.se