Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> writes:

> 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?

I suggest to describe the longest match as a rule that can be used some
of time, and describe a new rule, random selection, to be used some of
the time.  Then you recommend the latter approach when the application
don't know that the longest match rule is more appropriate.

This would seem to meet the objective of causing the least surprise and
the least damage.

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