Removing the IESG from CC. > I propose you start mentioning what you believe are unspecified gaps > that could lead to interoperability issues.
With all due respect, Daniel, I'm a little surprised by this development. In this WG, we did spend a lot of effort ensuring that all of our specifications have at least two independent implementations. This allowed us to claim with assurance that our protocols are not only implementable, but actually described clearly enough to allow independent reimplementation. (Which didn't prevent a small minority of IESG members from blocking progress for months, but that's a different story, and one that's well documented in RFC 3774.) >From your mail, it would appear that the burden of proof has changed sides: it is apparently no longer the people who propose a protocol who need to prove that it is implementable, but the people who have tried but failed to understand how to implement a draft who need to prove that the draft is incoplete. When did that happen? -- Juliusz _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
