Ryan Malayter <malay...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mar 12, 10:07 am, "Robert E. Seastrom" <r...@seastrom.com> wrote: >> It didn't help that there was initially no implementation of shim6 >> whatsoever. That later turned into a single prototype implementation >> of shim6 for linux. As much as I tried to keep an open mind about >> shim6, eventually it became clear that this was a Gedankenexperiment >> in protocol design. Somewhere along the line I started publicly >> referring to it as "sham6". I'm sure I'm not the only person who came >> to that conclusion. >> > > I thought the IETF required two inter-operable implementations for > protocols. Or was that just for standards-track stuff?
Rough consensus and working code is soooooo 1993. -r
