+1 to Randy's observation. It's almost as if we value our own opinions more than we value running code...
-Benson On Tuesday, February 16, 2016, Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote: > >> One thing to keep in mind is that, if the document describing the > >> currently deployed protocol is informational, we may have a tricky time > >> making the extensions be standards track; it would (presumably) require > >> a downref. > > > > it would; it is not logically a huge problem, merely wierd. > > > > I doubt very much that a push for better securing of an existing mature > > protocol is the likely source of controversy there. > > what is amusing is that some folk seem to be contemplating that the > rfc of an old and widely distributed and used protocol should not be > standard. > > randy > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org <javascript:;> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
