On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Francis Dupont wrote: > Perhaps some of us didn't remember but: > - I predicted the RFC 3484 will be always at least a phase back from > what we want. > - I predicted too it would take a not reasonable amount of time to > get the document published or updated. > Unfortunately both predictions were right so again I propose to make > this a BCP and *not* a standard track document.
Francis, I don't think BCP status would change this; that's still a IETF consensus document. Maybe some implementations could fix their implementations with local hacks without as easily becoming (on paper) incompliant but they can already do this in any case. However the goal of the IETF is to "make the Internet work better" (BCP95); I see significant value in finding out what works best and specifying that and revising that specification as necessary. Instead of leaving each vendor in the dark and invariably doing lots of corner cases wrong. Maybe the critical thing that has been missing in the RFC3484 discussions has been "have vendors already fixed this? how? which approach has worked and which not?" -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
