[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: WG document status
- To: "Yakov Rekhter" <yakov@juniper.net>, "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
- Subject: RE: WG document status
- From: "Lazer, Monica A, ALCNS" <mlazer@att.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 10:03:11 -0500
- Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "Lazer, Monica A, ALCNS" <mlazer@att.com>, "Brungard, Deborah A, ALASO" <dbrungard@att.com>, "Afferton, Thomas S (Tom), ALCNS" <afferton@att.com>, "Brungard, Deborah A, ALASO" <dbrungard@att.com>, "Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO" <gash@att.com>
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