Part of the reason we write restrictions and requirements into RFCs is
so that we do not have to repeat the arguments.
If the proponents of the insertion have arguments for why it is now
okay, they need to make those arguments. And they need to make sure
that the discussion is taken to the relevant working groups. The burden
should not be on those who are asking that attention be paid to existing
RFCs.
Yours,
Joel
On 9/5/2019 9:05 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
Fernando,
The IETF is not writing de jure standards.
In fact reality is quite different, and the Internet evolves the way it does
somewhat independently of what documents the IETF produces.
In fact I know of no networking products (or deployments) that follow the
intent and spirit of RFC8200. I challenge to point me to one! ;-)
How did we elevate IPv6 to Internet Standard, then? On the shepherd
write up for rfc2460bis, you argued essentially the opposite to what
you're arguing now:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis/shepherdwriteup/
I have not changed my position with regards to header insertion.
I'm arguing that you should argue technical merit on actual proposals.
Instead of trying to make RFC documents apply as laws and slap people over the
head with those...
Cheers,
Ole
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
