On 1/9/19 03:32, Mark Smith wrote: > +1 > > The value in using a commodity protocol like RFC 8200 compliant IPv6 > for something like SR is that you're gaining from IPv6 being well > understood, widely implemented, widely deployed, widely interoperable, > widely tested, and the major bugs have very likely already been > discovered. It's cheaper to use something that it is already widely in > use. > > However, if you then try to stretch or go beyond expected use and > semantics, and violate protocol definitions, you're decommodifying the > commodity. You've lost significant or all of the value of using the > commodity protocol in the first place.
I think it's simpler than that: it would be quite "interesting" to have one wg specify protocol A, and another wg that specifies protocol B that uses protocol A while violating the very spec of protocol A. -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
