RE: Spin bit decision

[Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>]

Alexandre Ferrieux wrote:
>On 10/02/18 16:00, Lars Eggert wrote:
>>
>> The point I can't seem to be getting across is that irrespective of
>> what the WG decides to require, there is no penalty for individual
>> stacks at deployment time (or after) to do whatever they wish, since
>> the spin bit by design has no impact on protocol operation and interop.
>
>It is getting across, but it is a very grim view of the standardization process
>itself. Are there many examples of MUST in RFCs that turned out to be
>ignored by implementations just because they were not part of the core
>semantics and hence not enforced by other peers ?
>

One example is provided in RFC 6919 Section 1 [1].

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6919#section-1


-----------------------------
http://www.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in
error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the
information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to
this.
-----------------------------