On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 14 okt 2008, at 18:45, Pekka Savola wrote:
The reality is that most implementors will just ignore anything the spec
says they don't like or consider unnecessary in the scenarios they have in
mind. As long as their code interoperates (in those specific scenarios)
with other major implementations, most couldn't care less.
Not sure what the point of this argument is, unless you mean to say that we
should all find better things to do with our time than participating in the
IETF.
The implication of your argument seemed to be that by putting stuff
we'd like to enforce in the spec would result in vendors implementing
something they didn't want to implement in the first place.
I was arguing that whatever we put in the spec must have significant
support in the implementation community, otherwise we'll end up
creating an irrelevant spec, or even worse, a spec that is contrary to
deployments out there.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
