ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: A note about draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis

2013-05-02 14:50:54
Doug,

No hat.

On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 12:22:03PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
Given that you can be 100% confident that the issue will be raised
during IETF LC, wouldn't it be better to hash it out in the WG (as
we have attempted to do)? Or is the WG's position, "we have no
intention of dealing with this unless we're forced to?"

We _have_ hashed this out in the WG.  As I have noted to you -- now on
three separate lists -- the problem is that we have an actual
interoperability bug in RFC 4408, and we need to fix it.  The WG
evaluated the various alternatives for how to solve that, and having
performed the evaluation the group came to the conclusion that, _in
this specific case_, deprecating RRTYPE 99 is the most reasonable
course of action.

I am not happy about this, but other analyses do not seem to be
supported by any facts, nor by any argument that leads to the
conclusion that an arrangement we would all like better has any chance
of deployment.  This is just a plain fact of the Internet, I think,
and if you think it's not I would like some evidence, please.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs(_at_)anvilwalrusden(_dot_)com