On 02/10/2012 20:04, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: Doug Barton <[email protected]>
>
> > My point is that no matter how loudly you say, "Don't use this as
> > 1918 space!" some users will do it anyway.
>
> And if they do, any problem that results is _their_ problem.
You snipped the bit of the my post that you're responding to where I
specifically disallowed this as a reasonable argument.
> > That means that there is no reason to allocate this new block.
>
> No.
Let me boil it down even more for you. The new block's purpose is to
make collisions impossible. It cannot fulfill that purpose. So it
shouldn't be allocated.
> If people are using thing X in way A, _which is allowed by the definition of
> X_, then it's really rude/unfair for a responsible standards body to turn
> around and say 'ooops, now you can't use thing X in way A'.
>
> If, on the other hand, the standards body then says 'here's a new thing Y;
> don't use thing Y in way A', and people go ahead and use thing Y in way A,
> then the standards body can reasonably sit back and laugh at them and blow
> a raspberry at them when they complain.
Setting aside the fact that what you're suggesting is a silly and
childish way for any human to act (even taking hyperbole into account),
it's a very irresponsible way for an SDO to conduct themselves. And
that's assuming that this action doesn't have a cost, whereas the truth
is that it has several, both direct and indirect.
Doug
--
It's always a long day; 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
