In the Routing Area, it depends upon the WG as to whether 2 interoperable implementations are required. This is always the case in, for example , IDR. For a new routing protocol, I think it would be appropriate to be comfortable that others can implement it and it works well.
Regards, Alia On Mar 25, 2015 7:43 AM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 1) I don't know where the "2 separate implementation" concept is > > embedded formally in the ietf structures for approval. > > It isn't, for Proposed Standard status, although historically the > Routing Area has been tougher than the rest of the IETF because of > reasonable concern that a faulty routing protocol can produce more > horrible failure modes than pretty much anything else. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4794 may clarify a bit. > > For advancement to Internet Standard there is a requirement > for 2 implementations but that is not germane to the current > discussion. (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6410) > > Sigh. It's embarassing how baroque the IETF process documents > have become, but it would be a lot of uninspiring work to > clean them up. That's why I've been maintaining this page for > a few years now: http://www.ietf.org/about/process-docs.html > (And yes, I'm aware it's overdue for an update.) > > Brian > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
