Regards
Brian Carpenter
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7924-6182
On 26/03/2015 05:37, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Dave,
>
> Alia is right -- there do not at the current time exist two independent
> implementations of Babel.
>
> We can argue about whether that is a reasonable requirement, but we cannot
> argue about the above, which is a fact.
But she also said, or rather logically implied, that if there was a
babel WG it could decide that two strictly independent implementations
were *not* required for Proposed Standard. Of course the AD and the IESG
would have to agree, but it is perfectly allowed by the current IETF rules.
BTW there is also no rule that WGs must hold meetings. Reaching rough consensus
on the WG list is necessary and sufficient under the rules. It's rare
but entirely possible.
Brian
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
