Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> writes: > Slavish adherence to standards, or to the views of mistaken upstreams, > is a generally a mistake. This is particularly the case for the > Debian Technical Committee. > > The TC's job is to decide what the correct behaviour is, by > considering the technical merits. The TC's job is not to interpret > standards documents. (Indeed, within our jurisdiction, our job > includes changing them if we disagree with them.) As there's no actual standard document that describes this behavior, it's a bit weird you feel that you should be the one to change it. While I agree that the RFC is proposing a sort order which isn't useful (at all) in the actual implementation of internet routing, I believe diverging from upstream and the standard without proposing a better way to solve this problem to be a bad idea. A bad RFC is a (smallish) problem, but a slightly different, probably under-documented [1] behavior can lead to, eh, interesting problems as soon as applications use the upstream behavior for something useful. To avoid this, spending some time to come up with a better solution that can be standardized seems like a good idea. > As the implementor of a DNS resolver library, a past IETF participant, > a DNS administrator, and someone who's followed some of the IPv6 > transition work, I'm convinced I have that understanding. Reddening your cheeks and bouncing up and down to display your alpha male self-image isn't really helpful in a technical discussion. Marc Footnotes: [1] I haven't seen your patch, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't contain a big fat "DANGER! WARNING! INCOMPATIBILITIES BE HERE!" disclaimer
Attachment:
pgpCkWW9z0eX7.pgp
Description: PGP signature