> I do prefer the latter as well (and yes, happy to remove the restriction),
> but I don't feel very comfortable pretending that tunneling wouldn't happen.
Of course people will tunnel stuff. But will they all tunnel it the same
way, in which case a standard could be useful, or will they each have
their own hacks? Given the vagueness about how you can tell that
something should come out of the tunnel back into the envelope, it sounds
more like the latter.
If the only issue was tunneling, I'm not sure it would matter as much as it
does. After all, if we have a spec that says use MT-Priority and someone
uses something else within their ADMD, who will even know?
But this isn't just about tunneling. There are a bunch of ad-hoc priority
mechanisms out there, some in fairly widespread use. If we cannot align
ourselves with those nobody is going to be interested in deploying this
extension. Instead they will be asking us to retain our present capability of
interoperating with those existing systems. And doing both is ... messy to say
the least, not to mention a violation of the current language in the
specification.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf