On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

The yak we are shaving here, is whether two inter-operable implementations
leveraging the same mit-licensed source code base (as in the base babeld daemon
and the quagga implementation) are acceptable to this wg.

>
> 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



-- 
Dave Täht
Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again!

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb

_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Reply via email to