I agree with several who have already voiced objections to obsoleting 2119.
On the other hand, a BCP on conformance keyword usage could be useful.
In addition to the clarification of the use of SHOULD
(that is being discussed at length),
I would like to see a clarification of the difference
There are any number of IETF RFC's which were published and then
accepted in the community under the proviso 'that they would become IETF
standards' which in many instances they do not. Further many of them are
abandoned in an uncompleted mode as standards efforts.
To that end I would like to
Why? No one has cared about the annual review from 2026. No one has time to
do the bookkeeping and spend the effort to evaluate stuck documents.
If there is an RFC that is harmful, then one can always ask to have it moved to
Historic.
On Sep 4, 2011, at 10:23 AM, todd glassey wrote:
There
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 23:10 -0400 Sam Hartman
Hmm. Most of the times I use SHOULD I'd expect them to stay
SHOULD. SHOULD doesn't mean this feature is desired, it
means do this unless you have justification for doing
something else. There are a few cases (new
Michael Richardson wrote:
Keith == Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com writes:
In my view, SHOULD are user protocol options to set.
Keith In my view, SHOULD should rarely be used for optional
Keith protocol features, because optional protocol features should
Keith
On 2011-09-03 21:13, Adam Barth wrote:
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Roy T. Fieldingfield...@gbiv.com wrote:
On Aug 23, 2011, at 2:19 PM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Web Security WG (websec) to
consider the following document:
- 'The Web Origin Concept'
I think we all know the market generally speaks for himself on whats
used or not used, official stamping of IETF approval or not, vendor
interest or not. But I also believe it is another reason why there
are other issues, such like the RFC2119bis debates. Today, we have
more integrated
Yoshinori,
The DSMAP/DDMAP was explicitly added to make it possible
to direct the implementation to respond to the echo request as
if it were directed to a specific interface (either the egress
or ingress interface).
This interface-specific echo request is what I believe
folks
Are you actively involved in operating network services over IPv6, either at
work or as a hobby?
Are you interested in pushing the frontiers of the IPv6 Internet forward, by
assisting in the deployment of new services and applications?
If so, you may be interested in assisting with the
