On 02/10/2012 20:04, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: Doug Barton <dougb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > My point is that no matter how loudly you say, "Don't use this as > > 1918 space!" some users will do it anyway. > > And if they do, any problem that results is _their_ problem. You snipped the bit of the my post that you're responding to where I specifically disallowed this as a reasonable argument. > > That means that there is no reason to allocate this new block. > > No. Let me boil it down even more for you. The new block's purpose is to make collisions impossible. It cannot fulfill that purpose. So it shouldn't be allocated. > If people are using thing X in way A, _which is allowed by the definition of > X_, then it's really rude/unfair for a responsible standards body to turn > around and say 'ooops, now you can't use thing X in way A'. > > If, on the other hand, the standards body then says 'here's a new thing Y; > don't use thing Y in way A', and people go ahead and use thing Y in way A, > then the standards body can reasonably sit back and laugh at them and blow > a raspberry at them when they complain. Setting aside the fact that what you're suggesting is a silly and childish way for any human to act (even taking hyperbole into account), it's a very irresponsible way for an SDO to conduct themselves. And that's assuming that this action doesn't have a cost, whereas the truth is that it has several, both direct and indirect. Doug -- It's always a long day; 86400 doesn't fit into a short. Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf