Re: WG dcoument status

[Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]

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]
> 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]
> > > 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
Address: Alcatel - Optical NA, Fr. Wellesplein, 1 
         B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone:   Work: +32 3 2408491 - Home: +32 2 3434361