Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9

Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> Tue, 03 June 2008 13:28 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 6C28C3A6B9B; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 06:28:30 -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 9349D3A6B8C for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 06:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 X8XasVy0I5HB for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 06:28:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from yxa-v.extundo.com (yxa-v.extundo.com [83.241.177.39]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 027903A6C3F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 06:27:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from yxa.extundo.com ([83.241.177.38] helo=mocca.josefsson.org) by yxa-v.extundo.com with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <simon@josefsson.org>) id 1K3WY5-0007ZA-AH; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:27:38 +0200
From: Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9
References: <200806020456.m524ueYb080876@drugs.dv.isc.org> <200806031243.m53Cheo5027215@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <87prqyd6nt.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> <5DB97BCF-9155-4864-9554-ECBCE80C38EF@cisco.com>
OpenPGP: id=B565716F; url=http://josefsson.org/key.txt
X-Hashcash: 1:22:080603:ietf@ietf.org::AjnPD38ji5XJP2wS:3uiO
X-Hashcash: 1:22:080603:rdroms@cisco.com::qW1AGs5QiGvvWdsD:IXBw
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:27:36 +0200
In-Reply-To: <5DB97BCF-9155-4864-9554-ECBCE80C38EF@cisco.com> (Ralph Droms's message of "Tue, 3 Jun 2008 09:01:33 -0400")
Message-ID: <87abi2d4xj.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> writes:

> Without some way to choose which rule to use and when to use it, how  
> can a recommendation that has conditional rule usage be implemented?

We could detail the method to establish which rule to use, but that
requires that we can get consensus on those details.

Many people seems to prefer random selection.  Could those who prefer
longest match perhaps explain when that rule is appropriate to use and
preferable to random selection?  If so, we can use their explanation to
decide when to use that mode.  If that explanation doesn't apply to a
particular implementation, or the application does not know whether it
applies, using random selection could be the default.

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