In message <BCBF3C86-A866-434D-A585-70781C8819F7@shagadelic.org>,
Jason Thorpe writes:

>> Nope. I state again, for for the record: the proposed change is
>> *broken*. It should not be committed. If it is committed anyway, I
>> fully intend to back it out as breaking Strong-ES as described in
>> RFC-1122.  On that, you can fairly call me being rigid.
>
>Well, that is something that will have to be discussed with Core  
>before you take either action.

People who don't know which side of the road to drive on shouldn't
drive.  People who can't be bothered to read RFC-1122, don't get to
change IPv4.  It's that simple.


If the appropriate protocol is to go through Core, or tech-exec: sure.
But if David commits his curent patch, I *would* make David's change
optional, and the default *would* be to disable it.


I see no reason to wait for Core to remedy that.