Re: disagreement on which OS should change

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 25/04/2019 à 18:09, 神明達哉 a écrit :
> At Thu, 25 Apr 2019 09:41:35 +0200,
> Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>  > >  > That an implementation allows you to do something does not mean 
> that
>  > > it is supported (in the product sense) nor that the RFC is wrong.
>  > >
>  > > Right, but I actually don't understand why we still have to have this
>  > > kind of conversation.  Almost all real-world implementations have some
>  > > glitch;
>  >
>  > The problem here would be to ask which of the OSs have the glitch: the
>  > ones that support fe80:1:: or the ones that dont?
> 
> Obviously the former.

I think it is the latter: the OSs that dont support fe80:1:: should change.

Alex



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
If time permits:

I would like to make a note here.  I know that AD and Chairs read these 
messages.  I would like to invite consideration of these messages, if 
time permits, when pondering about which way the balance tips.

My reading of these discussions is that:

- one person, or small group of persons, indeed highly knowledgeable, 
consider fe80:1:: to be a violation of standards, an RFC to be right, 
one OS to be right, manual config of LLs to be wrong.

- probably more persons, or at least several persons, consider fe80:1:: 
to not be a violation of standards, some other OSs to be right, manual 
config of LLs to be right, 'liberal in what you accept', 'open minded'.

(some person is in both categories).

This is my reading of the discussion.

Alex


   The question itself is nonsense to me, equal to
> a question asking which OS has the glitch: an implementation allowing
> to send a packet with source=::1 outside of the node, or an
> implementation that prevents it.
> 
> If you don't like to consider it to be a glitch, update RFC4291.  As
> you've already seen it would be quite hard, but it's not necessarily
> impossible.  Insisting a standard violation behavior is not a glitch
> because of the existence of the behavior is just a time wasting
> effort.
> 
> --
> JINMEI, Tatuya