On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Robert Elz
<kre(_at_)munnari(_dot_)oz(_dot_)au> wrote:
This is the kind of thing we might have expected to see in a security
considerations section 15-20 years ago, when the network was a nice kind
friendly environment, where all the players would take great care not
to do anything that might cause a problem.
Those days are long gone. Unfortunately were stuck with that
infrastructure. Its good infrastructure - but not well policed - and
insecure as hell because too many people built a system that assumed trust
was the default value.
These days, if "the use of unsupported experimental code points" has the
"potential to disrupt the stable operation of the network" then that would
be something worthy of a CERT advisory and hasty code fixes by whatever
vendors are supplying the systems that would be disrupted.
Ya - I hear you - but this way its a good way to sell DNSSEC and put
Verisign in charge of the DNS keys. No thank you. But its worth watching
what happens.
(but of course, there's a "rule"
that says it must always be present, even when it is stupid, and obeying
the
rules is, of course, far more important than producing quality
documents...)
Yes - we are only human. Rules are good. That does not mean rules can not
be questioned. And changes made by consensus.
cheers
joe baptista
--
Joe Baptista
www.publicroot.org
PublicRoot Consortium
----------------------------------------------------------------
The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative &
Accountable to the Internet community @large.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf