IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Tue, 03 June 2008 12:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FA1C3A68A9; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 05:43:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD3E63A68C0 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 05:43:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hiZWLD8LWFXh for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 05:43:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com (e5.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.145]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D27783A68A9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 05:43:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e5.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m53Chg86028190 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 08:43:42 -0400
Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m53Chgfo211476 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 08:43:42 -0400
Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m53ChgmH029310 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 08:43:42 -0400
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (wecm-9-67-141-92.wecm.ibm.com [9.67.141.92]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m53ChfMt029277 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Jun 2008 08:43:42 -0400
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (cichlid-new [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.2/8.12.5) with ESMTP id m53Cheo5027215; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 08:43:41 -0400
Message-Id: <200806031243.m53Cheo5027215@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org>
Subject: Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9
In-reply-to: <200806020456.m524ueYb080876@drugs.dv.isc.org>
References: <200806020456.m524ueYb080876@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Comments: In-reply-to Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org> message dated "Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:56:40 +1000."
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:43:40 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Longest match in 3484 is a hack, ant it only works some of the
time. The WG most certinaly knew this when we approved the
document. But it was felt that longest-match was better than no rule
at all, as it helped on some situations.

The real discussion that should be held is what could we replace it
with if we pulled out the rule entirely?

We do need something better. What would that be?

Thomas
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email