Re: [IPv6] [Last-Call] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis-02

On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 3:44 PM Brian E Carpenter <
[email protected]> wrote:

> In what way does it "break" existing parsers? They simply return an error.
> Why is that a problem? As discussed at
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis-05.html#section-4-1,
> this is completely compatible with stepwise deployment as and when needed.
>
> Yes, it becomes a feature request for existing parsers. And it will only
> get implemented when the need is irresistible. No different from any other
> feature request.
>

I think the general issue is that some of them are looking for the
"authority" component, and relying on the uniform syntax here. Maybe it's
worth breaking that for this feature, but it's not a made-up issue. I still
look at it and think "why?", though.

thanks,
Rob

_______________________________________________
art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art