On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 07:31:29PM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote: > we can, if we wish, continue to standardize one protocol, watch as the world > deploys a different one, and still pretent that our effort was worthwhile. > however, this would fit the technical definition of "insanity", and i urge > that we avoid this course of action.
[…] > we need a kernel option for various open source operating systems which > causes all UDP to be fragmented at 512 octets of payload. If working on a protocol that merely depends on certain middleboxes eventually die is "insanity", what do we call it when people work on a protocol that depends on UDP fragments working everywhere? Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
