Re: Spin bit decision

[<[e-mail]>]

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 ?


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.