Henning Schulzrinne wrote: > > This decision raises a somewhat larger issue, namely whether deferring > to implementor desires is always the right thing to do. Compared to > implementers, there are many more users and system administrators. For > the reasons discussed earlier and alluded to below, they now lose in > having poorer error handling and more abuse. I thought standards > writers and implementer were supposed to serve end users (and maybe > the large number of people having to install and manage things), not > the other way around. Maybe this is another instance of the > oft-bemoaned absence of operators from the IETF discussion. End users > seem to be even more absent, even indirectly. Agreed. I see this as a big step in the wrong direction. No one has given a good reason for doing it other than 'its similar to what happens in IPv4', 'it makes life easier for people with awful internal procedures' and 'it saves us 3 lines of code in our software'. None of those are good enough reasons IMHO, given all the reasons not to do it. It might end up not being a big deal except for mail server administrators at big companies or ISPs, but it *might* be a massive deal, and given the easy change we could make now, I think it's a big opportunity being missed. _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf