----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Nordmark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > If we (the IETF) really care about security we need to make sure that we don't > create holes in the set of standards track RFCs we issue.
For some people, RFC means Request For Comment. Surely you don't think an RFC means anything with respect to real-world, operational deployment. It is easy to point to RFCs (especially IPv6 ones), that are operationally dysfunctional. Anyone writing code and making systems work sees that. Most of those people have no time or inclination to make "comments" in response to your "requests". They are busy making real networks work. RFCs do not make things work properly. They appear to mostly be resume-builders and large ISOC archive messages. It does not even appear that the people writing them have ever deployed any of the technology they write about. Take a survey of your ICANN and ISOC leaders. Most of them have never gotten near an IPv6 system. Many of them rarely even use IPv4 systems. They also do not appear to respond to your "requests" for "comments". Jim Fleming 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB http://www.IPv8.info -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
