Re: WG Review: Behavior Engineering for Hindrance Avoidance (behave) (fwd)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "Vernon" == Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com> writes:
    Vernon> Perhaps more NAT RFCs would help; they couldn't hurt much.
    Vernon> They'd be a lot of work and would certainly be ignored by
    Vernon> many people who consider themselves designers.  I can't
    Vernon> personally get enthused about telling people things that are
    Vernon> obvious and that will be ignored, like much of what would go
    Vernon> in new NAT RFCs.

  They would help yes.
  They do have multiple costs: most people time.
  As you say.

  I can not agree more with what you said.
  The only value I can see to them is as a stick.

  Given RFC3022, RFC2663, RFC3235, etc. do we really need more carrots?

  Since I don't anticipate being able to book an RFC1812 compliant hotel
room anytime, I'm not sure that I see the point in expending more
energy.

- --
]     "Elmo went to the wrong fundraiser" - The Simpson         |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson,    Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] mcr@xelerance.com      http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys

iQCVAwUBQVMhIIqHRg3pndX9AQFIbAP/QWxSeYhGMHknOmYrRUnH8DWuwfsD6Vaz
eA45aK+wNN7Hc8Y4OqjMDz29pTjXEJloWOkEUleaKF2ZDBmSlXjj5bH0WlbAXJ/8
K93DSmZ1zizLMb8pVNnZjIddtJGLgYMpnF90GeU9Wv/KHhBNrnzraclz25nZKunr
3631Vmv9yZY=
=DYJN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf