Hi -
On 2022-10-04 12:15 PM, Jürgen Schönwälder wrote:
...
I am hoping for a technically sound solution that provides predictable
behaviour of independently developed tools. Some "hints" that may be
used or ignored at the discretion of an implementation do not really
meet that bar.
...
There are conflicting goals at work here. I think we all know this,
but sometimes we need to remind ourselves:
(1) wanting to maximize the likelihood that a system assembled from
various bits and pieces will do what is intended. This is where
developers' minds are at most of the time, and as long as the versions
of the bits and pieces play nicely together, developers don't (want to)
think about it.
(2) wanting to know (and control) *exactly* what bits and pieces went
into a particular configuration. This is not just a concern for the
folks generating a shippable "build" of a product, but also for
operations folks who want to keep the number of systems configurations
they have to deal with in some sort of bounds.
The difference between the two is that the former is a mesh of
many-to-many potential compatibility relationships, some of which my be
speculative (e.g. versions that do not exist yet) while the latter
is a concrete list of known implemented components.
Both have value, but they're quite different beasts.
Randy
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
