On Jan 27, 2005, at 6:02 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Alain Durand wrote: ...The argument that NDproxy will only be used in a certain environments where SEND is not needed is clearly bogus, The IETF is not about defining standards for special cases but for the whole Internet.
I disagree as a matter of principle. It is perfectly OK to have specs that are incompatible with each other as long as they are never implemented on the same network. It isn't OK to do that without documenting the incompatibility.
It's clear that this argument doesn't apply to end to end protocols, but strictly to things that have topologically limited scope.
Actually we have plenty of examples of this; they are called routing protocols.
I'm not sure the parallel is relevant. Routing protocols are self-contained elements
that do not need each other...
Here, at least in the example Jim Kempf & Erik gave, the two elements could very
well be used together...
As a matter of principle, I think it is better to standardize things so they work
together all the time rather than balkanizing the domain of application
by defining mutually exclusive standards.
- Alain.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
