On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 04:57:39PM +0200, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: > Andrew, in this case how do you propose to formulate this? Mykyta "Not"? The goal you appear to have in this is to make the RFC series tidy. As the co-chair of a WG with an old and decidedly messy set of protocol documents, I understand and value that desire. But as the same co-chair, I have to tell you that any assertion that some feature (even if you think it is a dumb one that nobody ever should have used anywhere for any reason) is unused is the sort of thing that leads you into discussions of angels and pin-heads, trees falling in forests with no-one to hear, and so no. Heck, over in DNS land, we are barely willing to rely on features of the protocol if we know that there is a 10 year old but once widely-deployed piece of software that violated or didn't implement that feature. Setting up criteria that are formally nice but for which it is impossible to construct a test is a bad idea. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxx Shinkuro, Inc. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf