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

Andy, Loa, thanks for sharing your views. If there are valid reasons for pushing to iesg a non-implemented specification, we'd be ready to consider them. It would simply not be the default way of doing, nor the norm. If it was, if every draft was "really important", then none would really be,

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

Hello Kireeti, thanks for your inputs. I understand the challenge that "release x.y @shipping date d" might pose. What we want, is to go beyond the "I am aware of an implementation" type of response. It might currently be sufficient with regards to the shepherd write-up question, but won't be

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

Hi Andrew, Andrew G. Malis : - There are some (many?) operators that won’t put drafts into an RFP, only RFCs. My take on that is that if a known-stable specs is considered as something important to have, operators will put it in their RFPs (maybe not as a strict compliance requirement, but c

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

Kireeti, Martin, Any data related to a serious implementation (even a beta without a shipping date), would I think be convincing enough. "release x.y @shipping date d" was simply provided as a possible answer, not of the minimum requirement to be convincing. As Martin said we need more than "

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

Hi Loa, Loa Andersson : One can speculate about the reasons for this, but it seems that often the decision whether or not to disclose an implementation is outside the mandate for people participating in immediate IETF process. I would find it quite unlikely to be in a situation where none of t

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

Folks, Have we look at our ³forum² such as OpenStack? Do they have something in place there? Regards, Patrice Patrice Brissette TECHNICAL LEADER.ENGINEERING pbris...@cisco.com Phone: +1 613 254 3336 Cisco Systems Canada Co. / Les Systemes Cisco Canada CIE Canada Cisco.com

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

Hi Patrice, 2015-11-26, Patrice Brissette (pbrisset): Have we look at our ³forum² such as OpenStack? Do they have something in place there? Producing standards and producing implementations are different things. Openstack produces implementations, which may then may (or may not) become a de

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

Perhaps it is time to recall RFC 6982. While that RFC says nothing about setting hurdles (so that debate needs to continue) it does provide a lightweight way of tracking implementations and noting what bits of I-Ds have been implemented. Yaron and I can report mixed results from the RFC so far:

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

Thomas, On 2015-11-26 22:01, thomas.mo...@orange.com wrote: Hi Loa, Loa Andersson : One can speculate about the reasons for this, but it seems that often the decision whether or not to disclose an implementation is outside the mandate for people participating in immediate IETF process. I wou