On 26/2/20 18:20, Sander Steffann wrote:
Hi John,
So you are saying that other than the PSP issue, you support moving the
document forward?
Yes. As long as it doesn't violate existing RFCs and with that potentially
causes trouble for implementations that expect those RFCs to be followed I'm
fine with it. It's not something I would deploy, but I'm not going to stand in
the way of those who want it if it's not going to hurt others.
Indeed, that's the underlying principle: don't violate existing specs,
and if you mean to, propose a formal update of RFC8200.
(I don't remember of the top of my head if PSP was the only part of the
document violating RFC8200, hence my general comment).
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [email protected]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
