Re: [babel] An Implementation Policy for the Babel WG
Markus Stenberg <markus.stenberg@iki.fi> Wed, 13 February 2019 10:40 UTC
Return-Path: <fingon@kapsi.fi>
X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E825412894E; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 02:40:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kapsi.fi
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6s8qCdoT3Y0z; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 02:40:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.kapsi.fi (mail.kapsi.fi [IPv6:2001:67c:1be8::25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17BFF1274D0; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 02:40:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kapsi.fi; s=20161220; h=To:References:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date: In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID :Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe :List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=109LowbwEklT1P+1I/ogVWLdofK391xR7ljQjO4Gvys=; b=z2erPR9xBKz8KXcVDmd/Ylg5uH bp9yNHk285IZfObeSq6zc7wZIKXNEZCk9TB03p5hapveaGMNT/qL+DIZ3/iR6bTyMQF4tZqAKkfVd kTn3Dn+6Ra9vsWbHDnOuv8PrEYU02xBDKVftl++RsXh5O35Jguph/12e9Xaf7h3NKrwFtpiOFEjMW nN7Umpvua99RzVZX84ljnUvI0HFOvVtvs+sAe7ZYTnt/uQ9jOVLHZf83/FrypYlcqfCNuDi7OAznK 3NS9cUtwS28cfPoJcspDuZg+1P7NmMPtqjAc8Eph5l3aga3qHTzctFZaqBFWDrrYhp+GflppoP+ps X704e1AQ==;
Received: from 91-155-69-202.elisa-laajakaista.fi ([91.155.69.202] helo=himawari.lan) by mail.kapsi.fi with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <markus.stenberg@iki.fi>) id 1gtrxx-0007oI-Kw; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 12:40:33 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
From: Markus Stenberg <markus.stenberg@iki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <87r2ccm0ue.fsf@toke.dk>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 12:40:32 +0200
Cc: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, Babel at IETF <babel@ietf.org>, babel-chairs <babel-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <811C0085-9723-4B00-BF59-88ACAEB585F1@iki.fi>
References: <CAF4+nEFjazR0F4NiAikHe2R==GL8z6khfwd_NWNvu5+HT-O1Zg@mail.gmail.com> <87r2ccm0ue.fsf@toke.dk>
To: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 91.155.69.202
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: markus.stenberg@iki.fi
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on mail.kapsi.fi); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/sbsDoL8PJmXDFIS8LUsrfNhsWTc>
Subject: Re: [babel] An Implementation Policy for the Babel WG
X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." <babel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/babel/>
List-Post: <mailto:babel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 10:40:39 -0000
> On 13.02.2019, at 12.36, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote: > Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> writes: >> For example, you could require 2 independent interoperable >> implementation or 1 implementation or whatever. It is even permissible >> for the policy to be that it will be decided on a case-by-case basis. >> But whatever it is, they would like it to be stated in advance. >> >> So, it would be good to have such a policy for the Babel WG. > Don't we already basically have a policy of two independent > implementation for everything we do? Almost. I don't think DTLS has two for example though. I support two independent implementation as a sensible default though. -Markus
- [babel] An Implementation Policy for the Babel WG Donald Eastlake
- Re: [babel] An Implementation Policy for the Babe… Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
- Re: [babel] An Implementation Policy for the Babe… Markus Stenberg
- Re: [babel] An Implementation Policy for the Babe… Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
- Re: [babel] An Implementation Policy for the Babe… Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: [babel] An Implementation Policy for the Babe… Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
- Re: [babel] An Implementation Policy for the Babe… Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: [babel] An Implementation Policy for the Babe… Toke Høiland-Jørgensen