Randy Presuhn <[email protected]> writes:
30+ years of tradition (and BCP) not permitting types to be changed after they've been published, I suppose, motivated by our total lack of control over unpublished usage of these types after their definitions have been published. If there were actually something wrong with the semantics or syntax, I'm sure there would be more sympathy for the argument. But the heart of the argument is that the types label's mnemonicity is poor. That, coupled with the collateral damage resulting from a "fix", makes the whole argument terribly unpersuasive to me, particularly when the definition in question was been published, implemented, and deployed years ago.
FWIW, I'm not arguing for this change; however, to be fair, isn't this also about the existing published modules that are using the incorrect type? Thanks, Chris.
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
