Re: WG document status

[Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>]

Monica,

> 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.

According to the IETF Standard Process for routing "two or more
interoperable implementations must exist" when a protocol is advanced
from a Proposed Standard to a Draft Standard, but this is *not* required
when a protocol goes into a Proposed Standard. If the "we" that you
referring to in the above don't like this, then the "we" need to work on 
changing the rules of the IETF Standard Process.

Yakov.