For this working group, when an I-Ds is ready for WG last call it MUST have an implementation section based on, but somewhat more than, that mandated by RFC 7942 (BCP 205, Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section). We are asking that all items identified in section 2 of RFC 7942 be included. When information is not available, it is acceptable to say "not known". It is desirable if this section can be added earlier and maintained by the document editor for the benefit of the WG process.
Authors are asked to collect information about implementations and include what they can find out when that information is available for public disclosure. Documents will not be blocked from publication if the authors fill in the section as "none report" or "does not apply" when they have made an effort to get information and not been able to.
There are a couple of important additions to what is called for in RFC 7942. We have confirmed with leadership that these changes are acceptable in terms of IETF process:
1) Each implementation description SHOULD include either a statement that all MUST & SHOULD clauses in the draft are implemented, or a statement as to which ones are not implemented. If it does not include that, it MUST say that has been omitted.
2) each implementation description may include reports of what optional elements of the draft are implemented.
Reports of interoperability testing are strongly encouraged. Including the reports in the document is preferred or alternatively in the SPRING wiki. This may include a reference to longer and more detailed testing reports available elsewhere. If there are no reports of interoperability tests, then the section MUST state that no such reports were received.
1) Information which is generally applicable to IPv6 nodes should go
into IPv6 destination options, including the use of destination options
before routing headers for the case of IPv6 nodes that are destinations
of routing header paths.
2) Information that is specific to SRH processing should go in SRH TLVs.
3) We should not define the same information in both places.