Re: [pim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pim-group-rp-mapping-01.txt

[Leonard Giuliano <lenny at juniper.net>]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Andy Kessler (kessler) wrote:

-) John> Since the hash is the very last thing, I'd prefer that it not be
-) removed since its already
-) 
-) there.  Rather change it to a "MAY" requirement.  I'd hate to see it
-) removed only to 
-) 
-) find it has to be added back in again.
-) 
-)  
-) 
-) Andy>- The hash can't be a 'MAY' because different implementations need
-) to be compatible. 
-) 
-)  We asked in several forums if anyone was using the hash and didn't find
-) anyone that wanted
-) 
-)  to continue using it. We also received support for removing the hash
-) when this was discussed
-) 
-)  on this list previously. It will not come back if this draft is
-) accepted. 
-) 

Why again should the hash be deprecated?  Of all of the objectional 
things about BSR, the hash seems pretty low on the list.  Is it worth 
breaking backward-compatibility just to remove this fairly innocuous 
mechanism?

-Lenny