Re: [arch-d] I-D Action: draft-iab-protocol-maintenance-08.txt

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

Before I spend time and energy on an aspect that I realized is bothering 
me, I want to ask a question:

Are the references to well-maintained protocols important to your 
argument, or distinctly secondary?

Yours,

Joel

On 7/14/2022 8:00 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022, at 07:09, Bless, Roland (TM) wrote:
>> Please reread RFC1122 section 1.2.2.
> You might be surprised to hear that I have read that text.
>
> Joe's summary is right, "It IS about the fact that no specification is complete and the ways that different people interpret the same specification."
>
> Yes, this talks about how - for security - you need to handle arbitrary inputs.  That's always been true; RFC 3552 does a better job of treating that.  No debate there.  But it's advice regarding the handling of unexpected error codes is just bad.  You've read my draft, I won't repeat the part where it explains how relying on robustness as the basis for extensibility is a terrible idea.
>
> There were other points in your email I strongly disagree with.  I consider these superficial points.  The central point is that the very concept itself (as Joe stated it) is not a good basis for building a protocol ecosystem.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss