[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: WG document status
- To: Loa Andersson <loa.andersson@utfors.se>
- Subject: Re: WG document status
- From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>
- Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 08:03:16 -0800
- Cc: "Lazer, Monica A, ALCNS" <mlazer@att.com>, "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org, "Brungard, Deborah A, ALASO" <dbrungard@att.com>, "Afferton, Thomas S (Tom), ALCNS" <afferton@att.com>, "Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO" <gash@att.com>
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 05 Mar 2002 16:26:03 +0100." <3C84E38B.9040106@utfors.se>
Loa,
> 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?
the latter.
> For PS there is a requirement of at least two independently written
> implementations, but not on interoperability? Is that it?
Quoting from rfc1264:
4.0 Requirements for Proposed Standard
.....
4) One or more implementations must exist.
It said quite clear that *one*, not "at least two" implementations
is sufficient for a Proposed Standard.
Yakov.