My understanding, which could be wrong, is that the IESG has a long-standing policy that a routing protocol needs to have two interoperable implementations, written from the specification. It’s not about the SDO or the specification (IS-IS anyone?), it’s about having proof that the specification is in fact correct and implementable from, by having two or more parties do it.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
