Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > On 4/1/2010 11:05 AM, Fred Baker wrote: >> So - does RFC 5841 update RFC 3514, or obsolete it? > > > Probably not. RFC 3514 is actually a protocol. RFC 5841 is not. > > A protocol needs to specify deterministic behavior by participants at > both ends of the exchange. Otherwise there cannot be interoperability. > > The new entry defines publishing labels. That is, its focus is on > conveying mood rather than worrying about the use of mood. At the > least, it might have suggested that a bored packet label should be > subject to a flood of packets in response, just to make the issuer's day > more interesting?
This would have been easily avoided had this option been given a more typical April 1-type kind number, e.g., 258. I recall getting queries about how to support similar April 1 RFCs, since the indicator wouldn't fit in the intended field (port number 68000, protocol number 258, etc.). Simply using that kind of (in)sanity check could have helped avoid these issues... Joe
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
