The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query)
mysidia at gmail.com
Tue Sep 11 19:56:54 CDT 2012
On 9/11/12, Masataka Ohta <mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> (2012/09/11 20:52), valdis.kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 05:51:53 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
> No, I don't.
> It's Jimmy, Eliot and you who are relying on a non standard track
> RFC to deny RFC3102 and all the non standard track RFCs, which is
> the silly paradox.
Straw man. We don't rely on a non standard track RFC to "deny"
rfc3102 having significance, furthermore, we don't indicate that all
non standard track RFCs are of no significance; he's just being nice
about it. The rfc1796 just happens to contain a useful explanation.
If you don't read 3102 selectively, ignoring the disclaimers, you
can very easily see that RSIP is not considered a viable standard in
its present form, but possibly someone /might/ find it suitable for
RFC3102 denies itself, and please read the IESG note at the top of the
document; where fundamental problems are admitted to with regards to
interoperability and transparency.
"This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind."
Which means that RSIP has not received technical review or acceptance
like standards have.
The protocol doesn't have to work for an Experimental or Informational
RFC to be published.
The non-standards track rfc might still contain useful information,
but 3102 is a little more authoritative than someone's blog entry.
There are other non-standards track RFCs that are more important,
take RFC 1149 for example....
Just being a RFC alone doesn't make a document important or not,
reliable or not, anymore than a news article is important or not just
because it appeared on a certain bulletin board.
For now, and in its current form, I will discount the relevance or
the experimental protocol described in rc3102.
>> Standard or not, we have Christian Huitema, John Postel, and Steve
> If you have some respect to them, don't involve them with your
> silly paradox.
More information about the NANOG