Subject: [Idr] BGP implementations

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:30:27 +0200

Hello Sue and John,

I have a little process question. Assume a service provide has it's own 
BGP implementation, but for perhaps obvious reasons is not likely to 
open source it or commercialize it.

Does it count for IDR as one of the two required implementations to 
proceed with the draft ?

For example does it need to be demonstrated in public event(s) as 
interoparable with other BGP implementations or is it sufficient to 
document that such interoperability has been tested in house ?

In this particular case I am asking having in mind BGP enhanced route 
refresh.

Best regards,
R.

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:11:20 -0400

Robert:

Can you document the interoperability that has been done with other boxes?
Can the service provider comment on such interoperability? 

Sue  

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Raszuk [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 2:30 AM
To: Susan Hares; John Scudder
Cc: [email-masked] List
Subject: BGP implementations

Hello Sue and John,

I have a little process question. Assume a service provide has it's own BGP
implementation, but for perhaps obvious reasons is not likely to open source
it or commercialize it.

Does it count for IDR as one of the two required implementations to proceed
with the draft ?

For example does it need to be demonstrated in public event(s) as
interoparable with other BGP implementations or is it sufficient to document
that such interoperability has been tested in house ?

Best regards,
R.

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:12:40 -0700

The whole point of the implementation requirement is to demonstrate that the protocol specification can be readily understood and implemented by more than one person.  As such, what really counts is the breadth of exercise that the implementation has received and the constructive feedback that has been learned from the engagement with the Real World.

The fact that the implementation was done at a service provider, vendor, or high school student in his garage matters not a whit.  Similarly, commercial status and public demonstration are not relevant.

Tony

On Aug 10, 2012, at 7:11 AM, Susan Hares wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 11:16:28 -0400

Tony:

+1.   (to you and me) 

The real questions to determine on the implementation are the one I asked: 

a. Can you document the interoperability that has been done with other
boxes?
b. Can the service provider comment on such interoperability?

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Li [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 11:13 AM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: [email-masked]; 'Susan Hares'; 'John Scudder'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Idr] BGP implementations

The whole point of the implementation requirement is to demonstrate that the
protocol specification can be readily understood and implemented by more
than one person.  As such, what really counts is the breadth of exercise
that the implementation has received and the constructive feedback that has
been learned from the engagement with the Real World.

The fact that the implementation was done at a service provider, vendor, or
high school student in his garage matters not a whit.  Similarly, commercial
status and public demonstration are not relevant.

Tony

On Aug 10, 2012, at 7:11 AM, Susan Hares wrote:

> I have a little process question. Assume a service provide has it's 
> own BGP implementation, but for perhaps obvious reasons is not likely 
> to open source it or commercialize it.
>