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

[Jared Mauch <[e-mail]>]

> On Feb 23, 2017, at 10:34 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> > [e-mail] mailing lists by 2017-03-01. Exceptionally, comments may be
> > sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please retain the
> > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting."
> 
> Nothing in the past really matters here, what matters is: "Is the bis draft all set, did we fix all the things which must be fixed before this draft becomes a real 'standard'?"
> 
> I don't think you can say nothing in the past matters here. We know that there have been host implementations that relied on this guarantee, and we have to consider that if we change the standard, those implementations will become non-compliant.

This has always been the case and was a big excuse given by Cisco back in the 1990s for not fixing the directed-broadcast problem.

For progress to occur sometimes a prior behavior will become invalid, if we can’t handle this then there’s no hope.  I don’t live in a world without hope.

- Jared