> There's a point that I think should be made here, something like: > > In practice, interoperable implementations are commonly based on > Proposed Standard documents, so whatever design defects those > documents have tend to become part of the interoperable network, > perhaps in the form of work-arounds. Similarly, in today's > Internet, any security defects tend to be exploited at an early > stage. Fixing design and security issues in widely deployed code > may be difficult or impossible in practice. Therefore, there is > now very strong pressure to make the Proposed Standard as mature > as possible, rather than being just good enough to meet the RFC > 2026 requirements.
Yes, that is pretty accurate. Jari
