IMHO it is more of a matter of who does what first. If there is some existing and well-established practice among network administrators that would not work with the new protocol, the protocol has to be modified to avoid that. However, if the protocol is first established then deployed then later sysadmins do something that interferes with the protocol, it is not the protocol designers' fault but the sysadmins' fault that broke existing protocols. (Chances are, in fact, that if the new protocol is found to be useful among users and widely deployed, sysadmins probably wouldn't want to take steps that break the protocol.)
If there were two alternatives, one of which works even with some pessimistic foresights about what sysadmins *might* do in the future and the other doesn't, but both being similar or same in their functionality, it would do make a total sense that we must choose the former. However, if there is only one alternative, we should not reject it but opt for it at least tentatively until a better alternative comes forward. Regards, Eugene ----- Original Message ----- From: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Keith Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 3:28 PM Subject: Re: domain names as end-point identifiers? > > But vague assertions of the > > form "sysadmins will filter X" are unsupportable. If we pay them too > > much heed we'll end up trying to design a protocol to meet an > > unrealistic set of conditions, and either we'll never finish or we'll > > put the robustness in the wrong place. > > Again, I agree in principle. But this can never be an excuse for lazy > protocol design or implementation. Didn't we learn anything from the > PMTUD disaster? > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
