Re: [arch-d] [IAB] deprecating Postel's principle- considered harmful

[Henning Schulzrinne <[e-mail]>]

Arguing the alternative history is probably not all that productive and may
explain some of the disagreement in this discussion. (as in "Would protocol
X have taken off twenty years ago if all implementations had been strict or
if the spec had been less forgiving?") We do seem to have incurred a
technical debt - and maybe that's a related concept that should be
mentioned, as this is clearly not just a protocol or networking problem.

We now have better tools and a larger community of (more professional)
developers. Sometimes good advice that worked in 1990 is no longer as good
advice now.

Henning

On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 5:45 PM Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> Hiya,
>
> Just to clarify where I'm coming from...
>
> On 07/05/2019 22:32, Christian Huitema wrote:
> > The alternative is what I see in "modern" specifications, like e.g. QUIC.
>
> ISTM taking the approach outlined in Martin's draft with QUIC
> is a good plan. I also know that this approach has improved
> TLS even though TLS didn't start out doing things this way.
> And I can totally buy it being valuable to at least consider
> taking this approach for any new work. So I do like the core
> idea on which the draft is based.
>
> I'm just not sure as to how generally it can be applied, nor
> if we can really say that "if only protocol X had taken this
> approach, things would have turned out better."
>
> S.
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>