On 26/2/20 20:18, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
Writing this without any hat,
Please note that on the logical side, it still have to be "proven" that this
idea is strictly forbidden by RFC 8200. Moreover, this 'proof' can technically wait until
the IETF last call or even until the IESG ballot. I see little point in postponing the
closing of the WGLC and advancing the document (of course, the document shepherd will
need to carefully write the section about the rough WG consensus).
I'm not sure how the document could advance with clear and sound
technical objections. For instance... if anything, can anybody claim
consensus on this point?
Finally, as far as I know, at the IETF we have no religion... else we would
still be running NCP or IPv4 :-)
There's a difference between us forcing the use of specific technologies
(.e., a specific routing protocol in your network) and aiming at
consistency in our specs.
We are a standards organization. If we can't keep our specs consistent,
and we violate our specs at will, I'm not sure our work will be taken
seriously.
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
