Re: Resending: Re: 2842 to Draft Standard

[Susan Hares <[e-mail]>]

IDR working group:

I will be sending out a questionnaire that you can fill out
to the working group.   As I did prior to the the -17 draft,
I will also create a web site.

I, Yakov and Bill really encourage you to report your BGP
implementations, and any deployment experience on
these forms.

Sue Hares

At 10:16 AM 1/10/2002 -0800, Bill Fenner wrote:

>I am re-sending this message to the IDR mailing list since I didn't
>see it come through either on the list or in the archives.
>
>Subject: Re: 2842 to Draft Standard
>Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 12:01:37 -0800
>To: [e-mail]
>Cc: [e-mail]
>
>IDR WG,
>
>   In order to progress to Draft Standard, an implementation report
>is required (see section 4.1.2 of RFC 2026).  In particular:
>
>    The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable
>    implementations applies to all of the options and features of the
>    specification.
>
>RFC 2842 has several optional portions (e.g. sending Notifications
>and whether to include the capability in question in the Notification),
>which the implementation report that you included in the original
>request did not mention.
>
>   I'd like to see a more complete implementation report.  For
>example, if vendors don't mind being named:
>http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/IPCOMP-Implementation.txt
>or if they don't want to be named:
>http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/AGENTX-IMPLEMENTATION
>
>   Also, the process would go much more smoothly if there was an
>Internet-Draft containing the revision, even though it's so small.
>The RFC-Editor can supply the nroff of RFC 2842 if the authors
>don't still have their source.
>
>   Bill