Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino writes: > again, it is about rather serious security problem, which risked > the DNS root name servers. it's quite serious and really urgent. > the RFC publication should have finished way earlier.
Of course security problems are important. However, fixing them in the field is _never_ dependent on publishing an RFC, because the RFCs themselves are not executable. If there really are vendors that are failing to fix security problems because they want to see an RFC published first, then I'd suggest either taking that up directly with those vendors or simply choosing not to buy their products. I think that dismissing concerns about coherence and direction in the RFCs because of a desire to rush publication is short-sighted at best. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
