Re: RFC3484 destination address selection rule 2 is buggy

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Francis Dupont wrote:
> Perhaps some of us didn't remember but:
> - I predicted the RFC 3484 will be always at least a phase back from
>  what we want.
> - I predicted too it would take a not reasonable amount of time to
>  get the document published or updated.
> Unfortunately both predictions were right so again I propose to make
> this a BCP and *not* a standard track document.

Francis, I don't think BCP status would change this; that's still a 
IETF consensus document.  Maybe some implementations could fix their 
implementations with local hacks without as easily becoming (on paper) 
incompliant but they can already do this in any case.

However the goal of the IETF is to "make the Internet work better" 
(BCP95); I see significant value in finding out what works best and 
specifying that and revising that specification as necessary. 
Instead of leaving each vendor in the dark and invariably doing lots 
of corner cases wrong.

Maybe the critical thing that has been missing in the RFC3484 
discussions has been "have vendors already fixed this? how? which 
approach has worked and which not?"

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------