On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Simon Perreault <si...@per.reau.lt> wrote: > Le 2014-04-18 14:20, William Herrin a écrit : >> That would either be a very short document or a document so >> ideologically loaded that it has no technical utility. The Internet is >> pretty resilient. There isn't much a firewall can do to break it. > > In IETF we routinely use the phrase "breaking the Internet" to mean > something rather more limited than "breaking all of the Internet". There > are tons of things firewalls can do, and some do today, that would be > considered breaking the Internet. > > FYI, we had a similar document targeted at CGNs: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6888
Excluding references and remarks RFC 6888 is 8 pages long with 15 total requirements. Short. I'll let the firewall document's authors speak for themselves about their document's purpose. In the abstract, they said: ''This has typically been a problem for network operators, who typically have to produce a "Request for Proposal" from scratch that describes such features.'' That says, "discriminator for potential purchases" to me. What's your take? I agree that a "don't break the Internet' firewall requirements document could have utility. But that doesn't appear to be this document. And if done well, such a document would be short just like RFC 6888. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
