Carlos Pignataro <[email protected]> wrote: > I send a request asking for an FCFS value. Get an assignment without > issues. Done. Had I requested a Spec Required value, the expert might > have pushed back with potential interop and stability concerns for the > spec and the pointer. Why would I do that?
You don't care, so you don't. End of problem.
> So, I am *not* writing a spec to get an assignment. I wrote a spec to
> have implementations. Since it’s the same work to ask for FCFS than
> Spec Required, would anyone not ask for FCFS?
If you don't care if your specification is available, if it interoperates
with others, or can be decoded in 20 years by others, then FCFS is fine for you.
> If this is the perspective, and as you mentioned, are interested in not
> overthinking, the proposal does not seem to provide guidance on why or
> benefits of Spec Required, nor prevents from attacks to the registry.
IANA and Designated Experts will notice if there are nuissance requests.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
