RE: WG document status

[Sasha Vainshtein <Sasha@AXERRA.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,
                                   Sasha Vainshtein
email:     sasha@axerra.com <mailto:sasha@axerra.com> 
tel:       +972-3-7659993 (office)
           +972-8-9254948 (res.)
           +972-58-674833 (cell.)
 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa.andersson@utfors.se]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 5:26 PM
> To: Lazer, Monica A, ALCNS
> Cc: Yakov Rekhter; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); ccamp@ops.ietf.org; 
> Brungard, Deborah A, ALASO; Afferton, Thomas S (Tom), ALCNS; 
> Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO
> Subject: Re: WG document status
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> 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?
> 
> /Loa
> 
> 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 
> 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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           loa.andersson@utfors.se
> WWW             www.utfors.se
> 
>