On Sun., 1 Sep. 2019, 10:53 Fernando Gont, <fg...@si6networks.com> wrote:
> 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. > Well what I've described is the fundamental reason why that shouldn't happen and why everybody should agree that it shouldn't happen. At the point where an apparent limitation or constraint in one WG's protocol is discovered by another WG, the latter WG should then consult with the first WG on how to solve the problem that would be consistent with the first WG's protocol and architecture. If the behaviour doesn't comply with RFC 8200, it isn't IPv6 anymore. Instead it is a proprietary and unofficial variant of it. There's an RFC about this sort of thing. It also applies to different IETF WGs. Uncoordinated Protocol Development Considered Harmful https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5704 Regards, Mark. > > -- > 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
