Re: We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

Trimmed.
While the age of the documents you cite prevents proof, they sure look 
like what we now publish as Independent Stream documents.

If the draft in question were an Independent Stream RFC, was clearly 
informational, and with clear indications that the authors understood 
that their deployed behavior violates RFC 8200, I would not have much 
objection.  But to date we have not reached nay of those three 
conditions, much less all three.

Yours,
Joel


On 12/6/2019 3:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Joel,
> 
> On 07-Dec-19 04:09, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
...
>> Hence, as far as I can tell, the assertion that SRv6 is for limited
>> domains does not justify or excuse violating RFC 8200.  And "I want to
>> save some bytes", while very nice, is not a sufficient reason to violate
>> an approved RFC, must less a Full Standard.
> 
> On the other hand, running code in a variety of real and deployed
> products is something that we have a long tradition of documenting for
> informational purposes. RFC1094 or RFC3954 for example.
> 
> Regards
>     Brian
...