Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 4/1/2010 11:05 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
So - does RFC 5841 update RFC 3514, or obsolete it?
Probably not. RFC 3514 is actually a protocol. RFC 5841 is not.
A protocol needs to specify deterministic behavior by participants at
both ends of the exchange. Otherwise there cannot be interoperability.
The new entry defines publishing labels. That is, its focus is on
conveying mood rather than worrying about the use of mood. At the
least, it might have suggested that a bored packet label should be
subject to a flood of packets in response, just to make the issuer's day
more interesting?
This would have been easily avoided had this option been given a more
typical April 1-type kind number, e.g., 258.
I recall getting queries about how to support similar April 1 RFCs,
since the indicator wouldn't fit in the intended field (port number
68000, protocol number 258, etc.).
Simply using that kind of (in)sanity check could have helped avoid these
issues...
Joe
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf