[bess] Conclusion on the "one implementation policy"

Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com> Thu, 21 January 2016 13:49 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A5C31A877F for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 05:49:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 m_ilrPlhY3zq for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 05:48:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (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 32F431A8753 for <bess@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 05:48:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.210.45]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 497C1D746FE17 for <bess@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:48:52 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO-o) with ESMTP id u0LDmsvF008684 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <bess@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:48:55 GMT
Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712wxchhub03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.74]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u0LDmoNq012162 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <bess@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:48:54 +0100
Received: from [135.224.199.161] (135.239.27.40) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (135.239.2.74) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:48:52 +0100
Message-ID: <56A0E1C4.8060004@alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:48:52 +0100
From: Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: BESS <bess@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [135.239.27.40]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw>
Subject: [bess] Conclusion on the "one implementation policy"
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:49:00 -0000

Working Group,

Thomas and I have reviewed the comments expressed on the list since
our first proposal on the subject.

We consider that there is consensus to put in place the following (which 
is the amended proposal):

At the same time we will issue a Working Group Last Call, we will ask
for knowledge of existing implementations, and the more details provided
at that time, the better.
In the situation where an implementation exists we will proceed with
submission to IESG.
In the opposite situation, we will systematically ask the WG for 
reasoned opinions regarding whether we should nevertheless proceed
with submission to IESG.
We will gauge consensus on that aspect. In case consensus is in favour
of proceeding with submission to IESG we will do so. In the opposite
case, we will put the document in a "Waiting for implementation" state
until information on an existing implementation is brought to our
knowledge or of the WG.

This is effective from now on.

Thank you

Martin and Thomas