As far as I see, this thread illustrates that there is a significant gap
between the protocol designers, the protocol implementers and the
protocol users. This is something that needs to be addressed if the IETF
is not to loose its reason to exist.
Best regards
Stewart
On 05/12/2018 13:45, Joe Touch wrote:
Vendors are not required to lie when claiming IPv6 support.
On Dec 5, 2018, at 5:38 AM, Gert Doering <gert@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 04:31:17AM -0800, Joe Touch wrote:
On Dec 5, 2018, at 4:21 AM, Gert Doering <gert@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 04:13:47AM -0800, Joe Touch wrote:
Then THAT is the security issue. Not the packets that cause a broken implementation to have problems.
Can we declare folks at IETF that have no idea about operational realities
to be a security issue?
As long as we can do the same for operators that blame protocols for vendor issues.
If a protocol cannot be implemented in a way that can be paid by real world
participants, it's not a vendor issue.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
_______________________________________________
Tsv-art mailing list
Tsv-art@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art
