On 2017-2-3, at 1:18, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02/02/2017 22:54, Fernando Gont wrote: >> On 02/02/2017 06:37 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote: >>> Given that ICMP delivery cannot be assured over the vast majority of >>> paths in the current Internet, should this document make a >>> recommendation to implement RFC4821? >> >> I think that RFC4821 should be recommended, at least for dealing with >> ICMP blackholes (i.e., use ICMP if you can, but be able to deal with >> scenarios in which you don't receive them). > > Many people think that, but this draft is constrained by the rules in > RFC6410 about "high degree of technical maturity" and "widespread > deployment" in the move from PS to Standard. Adding new stuff is not > supposed to happen. If I recall correctly, the WG tuned the language > to its present state for that reason.
So in that case IMO the WG has made the wrong decision by trying to take this to Standard. A rev at PS that had brought the content up-to-date with regards to Internet reality would have been the better choice. Lars
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
