Well, yes, the "minimal effort" consists of writing an interop
report for something that sort of outlaws interoperation :-)
[Brian's standard gripe about RFC2026 being broken fits here.]
I still think it would be good to do, but not if it requires
non-trivial effort.
Brian
On 2009-02-12 10:5
> I think that simply reclassifying 3879 as DS would be a Good Thing
> and requires minimal effort.
Um, what would the interoperability test (required for advancing a
spec) actually contain?
Right. I thought so. :-)
3879 is weird in that implementations don't have to actually do
anything... Pa
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Well, I think Christian's point is valid. There are still text books that
list site-local as valid, and in my XP box I find:
DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : 130.216.xx.xxx
130.216.xx.xxx
Pekka,
On 2009-01-22 08:35, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Christian Huitema wrote:
>>> What did you have in mind? Is there a reason to advance it?
>>
>> I am getting enquiries along the lines of "OK, this was a proposed
>> standard 5 years ago, it has not progressed, does it mean it
RFC 4291 cites it (includes it by reference) but not as a normative
reference, but also restates the action taken by RFC 3879. Assuming RFC
4291 progresses along the standards track making the deprecation of
Site-local a "standard" is there any need to also promote 3879? Also,
since 4291 obs
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Christian Huitema wrote:
What did you have in mind? Is there a reason to advance it?
I am getting enquiries along the lines of "OK, this was a proposed
standard 5 years ago, it has not progressed, does it mean it is now
obsolete?"
FWIW, I wouldn't mind advancing it if
> From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hin...@nokia.com]
>
> > RFC 3879 was published as proposed standard about 5 years ago. Do we
> > intend to leave it at that stage, or to update its status along the
> > standard track?
> >
>
> What did you have in mind? Is there a reason to advance it?
I am getting
Christian,
RFC 3879 was published as proposed standard about 5 years ago. Do we
intend to leave it at that stage, or to update its status along the
standard track?
What did you have in mind? Is there a reason to advance it?
Bob
--
