I note that both Adam and Barry in their emails talk about this being
particularly applicable at the upper layers.
Except that is not what the document says. If you want to write a
document about application protocols, then the applications area can
have the discussion.
But this document does not say that.
So in addition to seconding the comments from several other people, I
would ask that the document be aligned with what the supporters say it
is about.
Yours,
Joel
On 5/7/19 5:00 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
On 5/7/19 3:48 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
I don't agree that poor application programming is a result of the
Postel principle, it's a result of incompetence or laziness.
For better or worse, significant portions of the Internet -- at least at
the application layer -- run on what you're calling incompetence and/or
laziness [1] . The question is: to what degree has Postel's Principle
contributed to this state of affairs; and, if we think it's a major
factor, can we change things so that future protocols don't suffer from
this as much?
To be clear, I'm not reading this as trying to put the genie back in the
bottle for already-deployed protocols like SMTP. I read this as
suggesting that maybe future protocols should be a bit more picky about
not accepting messages that are malformed or sequences of messages that
are unorthodox, even if some degree of processing is technically possible.
/a
____
[1] More generously, they're probably more the result of things like
cutting corners to meet deadlines and budgets, when the people cutting
corners suffer no consequences for the resulting protocol pollution.
