Re: #1132: Allowing IP addresses as path-identiites - Poll result

["Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <874q8kevrn.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>Between the various alternativesly currently being discussed, I have no
>strong opinions.  I think they'd all likely work.  The only caveat is that
>I think it would be useful to allow, however tagged or indicated, a server
>to just always put diagnostic information into the Path for all peers
>rather than requiring that all servers using the new Path format do Path
>identity checking.

That checking is currently a MUST in USEPRO (to encourage sites to upgrade
ASAP). I think you are suggesting reducing it to SHOULD. That can easily
be done if the WG wishes, though I personally prefer MUST.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5