On 02/04/2015 16:34, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > 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.
Formally, it's less rigid since RFC 4794, but the ADs have a lot of discretion. Brian _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
