Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

Yeah, thanks Martin. The slide has... ==Raising the bar?== • Some documents are being pushed to IESG but without any implementation (plan) to support them • We are thinking of “requiring” that at least one implementation exists before handing the document to IESG • Thoughts? The first bullet

Re: [bess] REG: draft-mohanty-bess-evpn-df-election-02

Hi Kishore/Sudhin, From: Kishore Tiruveedhula > Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 12:42 PM To: smohanty mohanty >, "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" >, sudeep

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

I think this may be a useful "procedural bar" and if so then I'd like to see it implemented in other WGs, too... And, to some extent, it may be within the prerogative of the WG chairs. But I am also surprised by the lack of discussion. And I don't see any substantial conversation documented in the

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

Without wanting to be pedantic, I would have expected to see discusison of this on the list, and determination that the list agreed with it. Discussion at the meeting is informative, but is not the basis for a WG decision. I am also slightly concerned that the working group is creating a

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

Hi Adrian, indeed, minutes should have been available sooner. situation has been corrected. The basic motivation for this is simply to avoid (over)loading the iesg with documents that have no (and could possibly never have an) implementation. Or, at least, if every spec gets implemented, it

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

+1 (I don't mean make it 1+1=2 implementations, I just say it's a very good new [and old ;-) ] idea ;-) thanks --- tony _ "Simple, clear purpose and principles give rise to complex and intelligent behavior. Complex rules and regulations give rise