Re: Last Call: 'Procedures for protocol extensions and variations' to BCP (draft-carpenter-protocol-extensions)

["Robert Sayre" <sayrer at gmail.com>]

On 9/6/06, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf at mit.edu> wrote:
> >>>>> "Robert" == Robert Sayre <sayrer at gmail.com> writes:
>     Robert> I think we're off on a tangent. Requiring TCP wouldn't
>     Robert> change any of the realities we're discussing,
>
> Agreed.
>
>     Robert> so it's not
>     Robert> a bug in the HTTP spec.
>
> Not at all obvious to me.

It's not obvious to me why we would to change the concrete definition
of interoperability in RFC2026 to an *untestable* definition that has
no bearing on reality, and do it in a document about protocol
extensions.

IMHO, an untestable definition of interoperability places too much
power in the hands of individuals. One can already claim that
something *really* fractious will harm the Internet, so a nebulous
definition of interoperability doesn't seem necessary.

--

Robert Sayre

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf