On 02/22/2017 10:50 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> With the difference that the standards clearly specify what the current
> state of affairs is.
and now we need to make the wannabe document match what the state of
affairs is in networking.
That doesn't mean "we've been violating the standards, so now the
standards have to change to match what we've been doing, even if other
parties are depending on the standards", does it? :-)
Oh, well... you said this exact words at the 6man wg meeting in Seoul,
when you were suggesting that we should allow EH insertion because some
folks had implemented and deployed code that was violating RFC2460.
Looks like you like to bend the rules depending on what you want to push
forward.
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492