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

Reply via email to