Randy Presuhn <[email protected]> writes:
Hi - Let me get this straight. WG A standardized types X and Y years ago, and support for these has presumably been implemented in some number of tools, which in turn have been used to develop some unknowable number of products, whose deployment is even more unknowable. WG B comes along, and wants to use X, but dislikes the name, preferring to call it Y instead. WG B then demands that A rename X to Y, with no regard to the process for managing changes to types nor to the collateral damage resulting from the changed definition of Y.
Hi Randy, It's not really like this. Instead, Acee (I'm not sure I'd call him WG B :) is asserting that *nobody* actually wanted the current type, and it has been misused everywhere and all over. The vast majority of implementations in operation probably can't even handle the actual type (Andy's point). So, Acee is just the messenger of bad news here. Please note that the AD in charge of all this agreed with Acee as well. Thanks, Chris.
That we should even be bothering with this discussion is the kind of thing that gives standards organizations a bad name. Randy _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
