Re: hah

> > [no CARP spec]
> >
> > why don't you help and write one then instead of just whining
> 
> Oh sorry that I request the specification of a protocol when you are
> whining about the fact that some company did write their documents and
> filed them ;)

whine whine whine

> Why should I reverse engineer and document your code?

whine whine whine

> Most people I know actually first write a specification before they
> randomly start putting code into their stuff.

whine whine whine

> But this clearly shows why IANA would not allocate you a proper protocol
> number, no docs -> no protocol number (*1)

whine whine whine

> You could have maybe read what I wrote, but I'll abstract it for you
> again:
>  - a spec allows people to say:
>     'we implemented that document and followed those rules'
>  - thus no ambiguity
>  - thus allows for interoperable implementations

whine whine whine

> But you do also know most likely that organizations don't like to rely
> on a single vendor for an implementation. And for CARP there is only 1
> and that single 'vendor' does not even have any support, coder goes on a
> nice long holiday to hawaii and code bugs, no support... you can't have
> that in a product now can you? You need docs, you need a spec.

whine whine whine

> Btw to quote: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03nov/193.htm
> 8<-----------
> The conclusion of the
> discussion was  that an internet-draft needs to be prepared in order to
> seriously consider  CARP in the context of this working group.
> ----------->8

whine whine whine

> Apparently writing a draft how it actually works, there is not even a
> real presentation about it available, is too hard. But then again those
> people are whining of course. Wonder why you then took the effort of
> presenting the thing in the first place, without a draft... "hah"? :)

whine whine whine

> I wonder what you would have done if there was no BGP spec around, would
> you have reverse engineered it in a clean room and then implemented
> OpenBGPd ? I wonder how many different assumptions you would have made
> about it in those cases ;) Given you have the code in this case, but

whine whine whine

> Greets,
>  Jeroen
> 
> *1 the thing you most likely read:
> http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/protocol.pl
> "We need some documentation on your proposed use of a protocol number."

whine whine whine

> For system port numbers they are being silly and demand that something
> is an IETF standard indeed, how can something become an IETF standard if
> it is not tested yet and with what do you test it ? :)
> Also IANA is most likely the slowest bureaucratic organization in the
> list of internet related organizations but that should not hinder the
> above.

cut your fucking whining.  if you read archives, you will know that i
spent more than 50 phone calls and hundreds of emails on trying to
get nokia and cisco and ietf to fix stuff, but they did NOT, so we
wrote something, and it works.

we have absolutely no interest in writing a standard at this time.

we have better things to do.

kindly SHUT THE FUCK UP