Re: It's been 20 years today (Oct 16, UTC). Hard to believe.

On 10/17/2018 12:43 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: * Laszlo Hanyecz: On 2018-10-17 02:35, Michael Thomas wrote: I believe that the IETF party line these days is that Postel was wrong on this point. Security is one consideration, but there are others. Postel's maxim also allowed extensibility.  If

Re: It's been 20 years today (Oct 16, UTC). Hard to believe.

I'm probably going to regret posting this but I think most of this dispute regarding Jon Postel's advice revolves around how the words "liberal" and "conservative" have changed over 20 years. Liberal used to mean adaptable, open-minded, and conservative used to mean cautious and hewing close to

Re: It's been 20 years today (Oct 16, UTC). Hard to believe.

* Laszlo Hanyecz: > On 2018-10-17 02:35, Michael Thomas wrote: >> I believe that the IETF party line these days is that Postel was wrong >> on this point. Security is one consideration, but there are others. > > Postel's maxim also allowed extensibility.  If our network code rejects > (or crashe

Re: It's been 20 years today (Oct 16, UTC). Hard to believe.

* Scott Brim: > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 22:37 Michael Thomas wrote: > >> I believe that the IETF party line these days is that Postel was wrong >> on this point. Security is one consideration, but there are others. >> >> Mike >> > > I saw just a small swing of the pendulum toward the center, a nuan

Re: It's been 20 years today (Oct 16, UTC). Hard to believe.

On 2018-10-17 02:35, Michael Thomas wrote: I believe that the IETF party line these days is that Postel was wrong on this point. Security is one consideration, but there are others. Postel's maxim also allowed extensibility.  If our network code rejects (or crashes) on things we don't curre

RE: It's been 20 years today (Oct 16, UTC). Hard to believe.

>For example just because they sent you a seemingly malformed HTTP >request, and given that 4xx is for error codes, doesn't mean you >should return "420 You must be high!" and expect to be understood. Actually, you can, and the sender of the request MUST understand. The relevant part of the appl

Re: It's been 20 years today (Oct 16, UTC). Hard to believe.

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018, Michael Thomas wrote: I believe that the IETF party line these days is that Postel was wrong on this point. Security is one consideration, but there are others. Postel's Law is about robustness of network communications. As such it can *increase* network security by impr

Re: It's been 20 years today (Oct 16, UTC). Hard to believe.

On 10/16/2018 08:36 PM, Scott Brim wrote: On Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 22:37 Michael Thomas > wrote: I believe that the IETF party line these days is that Postel was wrong on this point. Security is one consideration, but there are others. Mike I saw just a s

Re: It's been 20 years today (Oct 16, UTC). Hard to believe.

On 10/16/2018 08:20 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote: On October 16, 2018 at 19:35 m...@mtcc.com (Michael Thomas) wrote: > I believe that the IETF party line these days is that Postel was wrong > on this point. Security is one consideration, but there are others. Security fits into all this, bein

Re: It's been 20 years today (Oct 16, UTC). Hard to believe.

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 22:37 Michael Thomas wrote: > I believe that the IETF party line these days is that Postel was wrong > on this point. Security is one consideration, but there are others. > > Mike > I saw just a small swing of the pendulum toward the center, a nuanced meaning for "liberal".

Re: It's been 20 years today (Oct 16, UTC). Hard to believe.

On October 16, 2018 at 19:35 m...@mtcc.com (Michael Thomas) wrote: > I believe that the IETF party line these days is that Postel was wrong > on this point. Security is one consideration, but there are others. Security fits into all this, being liberal in what you accept doesn't mean you do w

Re: It's been 20 years today (Oct 16, UTC). Hard to believe.

I believe that the IETF party line these days is that Postel was wrong on this point. Security is one consideration, but there are others. Mike On 10/16/2018 07:18 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote: What it's trying to say is that you have control over your own code but not others', in general. So

Re: It's been 20 years today (Oct 16, UTC). Hard to believe.

What it's trying to say is that you have control over your own code but not others', in general. So make your own code (etc) robust and forgiving since you can't edit others' code to conform to your own understanding of what they should be sending you. I suppose that pre-dates github but noneth

Re: It's been 20 years today (Oct 16, UTC). Hard to believe.

On Oct 16, 2018, at 4:57 PM, Wayne Bouchard wrote: > Well, simply put, the idea is that you should be able to compensate > for a certain amount of deviation from accepted usage as long as its > still within what the protocol allows (or can be read to allow) but > that you yourself should act with

Re: It's been 20 years today (Oct 16, UTC). Hard to believe.

Well, simply put, the idea is that you should be able to compensate for a certain amount of deviation from accepted usage as long as its still within what the protocol allows (or can be read to allow) but that you yourself should act with a fairly strict interpretation. In others, don't be the one

Re: It's been 20 years today (Oct 16, UTC). Hard to believe.

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 02:01:48PM -0400, Daniel Corbe wrote: > The one thing I remember about Postel, other than the fact that he had his > fingers in a lot of DNS pies, is be liberal about what you accept, be > conservative about what you send. It’s a notion that creates undo burden > on t

Re: It's been 20 years today (Oct 16, UTC). Hard to believe.

at 1:11 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: Wow, was it a table of folks new to network engineering? If so, then schooling; if not, then clue bat... :-) scott The one thing I remember about Postel, other than the fact that he had his fingers in a lot of DNS pies, is be liberal about what you accept,

Re: It's been 20 years today (Oct 16, UTC). Hard to believe.

--- rjo...@centergate.com wrote: From: Rodney Joffe At NANOG two weeks ago, we had an interesting discussion at one of the lunch tables. One of the subjects we discussed was the original IANA, and RFC Editor, Jon Postel. Seven of the ten people at the table had never heard of him. Maybe th

Re: It's been 20 years today (Oct 16, UTC). Hard to believe.

It is a fact that I learned much of what I initially knew about internetworking by reading the protocols outlined in many of the offical RFC documents. You couldn't pick one of these up without seeing the name Postel at the top. I never met him but give due deference and respect to his work and wha

Re: It's been 20 years today (Oct 16, UTC). Hard to believe.

How soon we forget! It was a telephone call to Jon (there was no email) in 1981 that got my group the network that I still manage. He was the editor for the three RFCs that have my name on them. I remember him as a brilliant, kindly, efficient, helpful, and dedicated giant of the early Internet.

Re: It's been 20 years today (Oct 16, UTC). Hard to believe.

> On Oct 15, 2018, at 10:00 PM, Rodney Joffe wrote: > > At NANOG two weeks ago, we had an interesting discussion at one of the lunch > tables. One of the subjects we discussed was the original IANA, and RFC > Editor, Jon Postel. > > Seven of the ten people at the table had never heard of hi

It's been 20 years today (Oct 16, UTC). Hard to believe.

At NANOG two weeks ago, we had an interesting discussion at one of the lunch tables. One of the subjects we discussed was the original IANA, and RFC Editor, Jon Postel. Seven of the ten people at the table had never heard of him. Maybe these days it no longer matters who he was, and what he mea