Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> And from the perspective of the IETF as a standards body, an additional
> question may be whether an equilibrium has yet been reached. If it has not,
> and the implementing groups are actively participating in the standards
> effort, then I believe Martin's analysis suggests Postel's principle is still
> correct, though incomplete. Be conservative in what you send; be liberal in
> what you accept; be communicative about what went wrong.
While I think you mean to communicate to the WG/IETF about what went wrong,
there is also significant gaps in communicating to the operator, to the
remote end, etc. about why a given implementation didn't like that input.
We often cite security as a reason to just say "failed" on the wire, and
sometimes it is reasonable to do that, but I'd like our protocols to try to
say more about how to log things that were accepted (or rejected) as a result
of being liberal. Of course, spamming the logs is bad, but the goal here is
to be able to match a (the optional) log entry to something the protocol
specifies so that new implementations can actually figure out where they had
trouble.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
