12 Mar
2012
12 Mar
'12
3 p.m.
Ryan Malayter <malayter@gmail.com> writes:
On Mar 12, 10:07 am, "Robert E. Seastrom" <r...@seastrom.com> wrote:
It didn't help that there was initially no implementation of shim6 whatsoever. That later turned into a single prototype implementation of shim6 for linux. As much as I tried to keep an open mind about shim6, eventually it became clear that this was a Gedankenexperiment in protocol design. Somewhere along the line I started publicly referring to it as "sham6". I'm sure I'm not the only person who came to that conclusion.
I thought the IETF required two inter-operable implementations for protocols. Or was that just for standards-track stuff?
Rough consensus and working code is soooooo 1993. -r