|
On 7/3/19 9:30 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: difficulties. It used to be clear that you didn't deploy implementations based on Proposed Standard, but people did anyway.When was that "clear"? Probably I was thinking of RFC2026 section 4.1.1, last paragraph: Implementors should treat Proposed Standards as immature specifications. It is desirable to implement them in order to gain experience and to validate, test, and clarify the specification. However, since the content of Proposed Standards may be changed if problems are found or better solutions are identified, deploying implementations of such standards into a disruption-sensitive environment is not recommended. But of course
that's not stating it as strongly as I remembered, and the
problem of deploying implementations based on Proposed Standard
existed even before that. I remember a flap about telnet
implementations circa 1992 in which implementations of a certain
option didn't interoperate - one vendor followed the PS text and
all of the others implemented it in the opposite way, and I
heard a lot of people saying "they shouldn't have deployed at
Proposed".
|
