4 ms·
I doubt that "how things actually work on the internet" is "generally" reflected by RFCs. The history of the internet is people trying to work around and fix RF
by jorangreef 11y ago
I doubt that "how things actually work on the internet" is "generally" reflected by RFCs. The history of the internet is people trying to work around and fix RFCs actually ("at least with the popular ones"). If you're going to say "SHOULD" you may as well leave it out because people won't follow it.
- throwaway2048 11y agoYou are still taking a way too strongly legalistic view of things, standards are not laws (usually). Its not a "everybody conforms to the spec 100% or its worthless" situation in the vast majority of cases. SHOULDs exist precisely because of situations like pmtud, you cannot gaurentee it will be supported, but when it is supported it is helpful and useful.
- jorangreef 11y agoFrankly, the original concern is that fixed packet sizes relative to increasing capabilities are not a good idea for future hardware and software performance (think silly window syndrome or allocating a million 1-byte buffers). It's a technical problem that needs a technical solution (preferably through clearer language describing the issue or else we need to rethink things). I guess most people are simply not writing protocols that will be influenced by these decisions, so they fail to see the impact. Furthermore, no one said this was about "cudgels" and "bludgeons" or being "too strongly legalistic" or writing "laws". Those are your words, not mine.
- throwaway2048 11y agothe implied goal of changing a SHOULD to a MUST is to force people to comply, im simply trying to communicate that its really not that simple.