ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis prohibiting non-/64 subnets

2017-02-24 10:24:50
Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 09:12:45AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ:
So, are we spending too much time in this and is not really necessary?

Can we live with the actual text with has been in the market, and working 
well, for “x” years?

Can we make too many (or few very important) changes in an RFC in the way to 
STD, or we need first to have those changes in an RFC for “x” years and “n” 
verified implementations, before we move to STD? If the answer is no, is the 
balance between living with the current text but moving to STD a better 
option than waiting for “x” years again?

I prefer the document is fixed now; start the process of fixing classful
implementations now, rather than in x years - or please save operators from
those x+ years of pain.