Re: Lack of responses on WG Last Calls

Thomas,

On Dec 17, 2010, at 4:41 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:

> Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> writes:
> 
>> When we advance a routing protocol to Proposed Standard, for reasons
>> related to ancient IESG history related to routing, we generally
>> require a test report that shows interoperable implementations of
>> the standard in question.
> 
> And FWIW, I think that requirement expired and has long been OBE.
> 
> See RFC 4794 "RFC 1264 Is Obsolete"

I am the author of RFC1264 and was the Routing AD when it was written.  I completely agree with making it Historic.   The abstract of RFC4794 says it well:

   RFC 1264 was written during what was effectively a completely
   different time in the life of the Internet.  It prescribed rules to
   protect the Internet against new routing protocols that may have
   various undesirable properties.  In today's Internet, there are so
   many other pressures against deploying unreasonable protocols that we
   believe that existing controls suffice, and the RFC 1264 rules just
   get in the way.

RFC1264 was useful when it was written in 1991, but the world has changed many ways and it is no longer necessary.

Bob

> 
> While getting a routing/interoperability report is a fine thing to do,
> it is not and should not be a requirement to advance this (or any)
> draft to PS.
> 
> This draft should advance on its own merits (on which I have not
> opinion).
> 
> Thomas
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------