IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC 4861 missing updated-by

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 16 August 2017 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 314C7126CB6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:26:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sjHSxzV64AAk for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:26:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC35D12426E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02AA5E00A; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:29:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C07598076D; Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:26:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
cc: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: RFC 4861 missing updated-by
In-Reply-To: <289FAC54-6333-4CC3-A586-03DD7E58759A@employees.org>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1708100947130.2261@uplift.swm.pp.se> <8447.1502388439@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <a3ed97e2-e907-6a20-0d00-6de532784f0c@nostrum.com> <826ee900-0edf-2bb4-ed35-3824b6ad8bba@gmail.com> <2664CA78-2291-46C7-ACF9-460AA3A51706@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1708110743410.2261@uplift.swm.pp.se> <52cae497-9539-3ba3-70b7-0bb55317f986@gmail.com> <12017.1502561028@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708130754510.3655@uplift.swm.pp.se> <8318F69E-BD7C-404F-9420-0FEA1340936E@employees.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708151234491.3655@uplift.swm.pp.se> <F7C3A4FB-24A4-4A94-9262-FC4C1BF302B7@employees.org> <55c9de60-fdd7-f8c4-4b6d-29f4878d84da@gmail.com> <13BD69AB-B8DF-4023-85A5-813B6A62775A@employees.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708152330150.3655@uplift.swm.pp.se> <D3A540FC-E197-41D1-B3FB-B8CB530EB152@employees.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708160721130.3655@uplift.swm.pp.se> <B31EA17B-E431-4892-87DE-AE665D04E024@employees.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708161041140.3655@uplift.swm.pp.se> <289FAC54-6333-4CC3 -A586-03DD7E58759A@employees.org>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:26:20 -0400
Message-ID: <6724.1502904380@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/bdavYBhTVqzznGs4noYDE9px1bU>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 17:26:24 -0000

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
    > Think of RFC3315 as an example. Should it have a forward reference to
    > every DHCP option?

Yes.  Having worked on rfc3315bis, that would have been a great thing to
have. Did we need to merge them all into 3315bis?  No, but we did need to
look at them to see if they used some feature.  Maybe we could have removed
some unused feature from 3315 because it was never used.

    > Don't assume implementors are idiots. The reason why they don't do what
    > you want are typically not because of lack of intelligence or reading
    > skills. ;-)

Implementors generally work for idiots called "Product Marketing"

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email