On 02/10/2012 20:04, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: Doug Barton <dougb(_at_)dougbarton(_dot_)us>
> My point is that no matter how loudly you say, "Don't use this as
> 1918 space!" some users will do it anyway.
And if they do, any problem that results is _their_ problem.
You snipped the bit of the my post that you're responding to where I
specifically disallowed this as a reasonable argument.
> That means that there is no reason to allocate this new block.
No.
Let me boil it down even more for you. The new block's purpose is to
make collisions impossible. It cannot fulfill that purpose. So it
shouldn't be allocated.
If people are using thing X in way A, _which is allowed by the definition of
X_, then it's really rude/unfair for a responsible standards body to turn
around and say 'ooops, now you can't use thing X in way A'.
If, on the other hand, the standards body then says 'here's a new thing Y;
don't use thing Y in way A', and people go ahead and use thing Y in way A,
then the standards body can reasonably sit back and laugh at them and blow
a raspberry at them when they complain.
Setting aside the fact that what you're suggesting is a silly and
childish way for any human to act (even taking hyperbole into account),
it's a very irresponsible way for an SDO to conduct themselves. And
that's assuming that this action doesn't have a cost, whereas the truth
is that it has several, both direct and indirect.
Doug
--
It's always a long day; 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf