Even if one assumes that the violation has not been proven, I think it
has been shown clearly that PSP pushes the limits of 8200. If there is
a strong reason for PSP, then pushing those limits is sensible. But the
vast majority of the response we are getting to the issue on this list
is either:
1) It does not actually violate, so we can do what we want, even if the
value is marginal
2) the limits do not apply
Neither of those seem to address the question. And that gap is a
concern with closing the last call.
Yours,
Joel
On 2/26/2020 6:18 PM, 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).
Finally, as far as I know, at the IETF we have no religion... else we would
still be running NCP or IPv4 :-)
-éric
-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 <ipv6-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Warren Kumari
<war...@kumari.net>
...%<...%<....
It doesn't really matter how many people say +1 for moving it forwards
-- if there are valid technical objections these have to be dealt with
- and I think that the relationship with RFC8200 falling into this
category...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
i...@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
