M&T: You handling of this discussion has been excellent.
I think you are making a sensible choice to look for an implementations details, and then provide the details to the WG. Your choice of one implementation sending things to the WG provides the WG with more information. You allowing a draft to go forward based on input from the WG. One other thought, we might bring the subject of IDR and BESS handling of the implementation requirements to the NANOG, RIPE, LACNIC, APNIC, and *NOGs. If they can give both IDR and BESS a list of their concerns, it would be helpful to know what the operators as a whole want us to do. What needs 2 implementations versus 1 implementation. In the past, NANOG folks have encouraged me (as IDR chair) for 2 implementations for basic IDR mechanisms. It would be good to get more feedback for 2016's operators. Cheerily, Sue Hares -----Original Message----- From: BESS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Martin Vigoureux Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 4:29 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls WG, we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response to our initial proposal. After thinking further about that, we'd like to propose the following as a way forward: At the same time we issue a Working Group Last Call we would ask for knowledge of existing implementations, and the more details provided at that time, the better. In the situation where an implementation would exist we would proceed with submission to IESG. In the opposite situation (no implementation exists), we would systematically ask the WG for reasoned opinions regarding whether we should nevertheless proceed with submission to IESG. We will gauge consensus on that aspect. In case consensus is in favour of proceeding with submission to IESG we will do so. In the opposite case, we will put the document in a "Waiting for implementation" state until information on an existing implementation is brought to our knowledge or of the WG. Please share your views on that. Thank you M&T Le 24/11/2015 10:03, Thomas Morin a écrit : > Hello everyone, > > Following the positive feedback received during BESS meeting in > Yokohama about introducing a one-implementation requirement in BESS, > we propose to do the following for future WG last calls: > > As a prerequisite before doing a working group last call on a > document, the chairs will ask the working group for known > implementations of the specifications; a relatively detailed level of > information will be required (e.g. "release x.y of solution z shipping > date d", "all features implemented", "partial implementation only", > etc.) and everyone will be invited to reply (not only co-authors of > the specifications); the chairs will then do the working group last > call if satisfying information was provided on at least one implementation. > > We are open for comments on this proposal until December 7th. > > Martin & Thomas > > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess > > _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
