Seems like it depends on your definitions of "abusive" and "legitimate". Do you have an example? On Feb 21, 2012, at 5:56 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > We like to see interoperability reports contain information about features of a protocol that are used vs. unused, so that if and when the protocol seeks advancement along the standards track, we can decide whether we want to keep it in the revision. > > Should we consider a protocol feature only used by abusive actors to be one that deserves to be kept, or is only legitimate use worth considering? > > -MSK > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf