[ratelimits] I-D-ing rate limiting?

[Edward Lewis]

Interoperable as in "what the IETF touts as its chief objective."  Here I mean that the different implementations differ a bit but not in a way that causes problems for other elements.  I.e., a client {recursive server} can interact with a RRL BIND and an RRL NSD without any hitches or surprises.

Independence of the code bases is a consideration in the IETF when it come to advancing a document along it's standards track.  That's well after making an internet draft and after being a proposed standard.  (Process has changed at IETF, noted.)  For RRL, the fact that there are independent implementations is not that significant, document process wise, if this "only" stays as a non-standards document.

Regardless, multiple independent implementations does show interest...

On Apr 16, 2013, at 21:53, Danny McPherson wrote:

> 
> On Apr 16, 2013, at 3:57 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> 
>> I said that before, but with three implementers(*) out there, I think it's time.  Especially as the implementations still differ yet are interoperable.
> 
> Ed, 
> Can you expand on what you mean by "interoperable" here?  Perhaps s/interoperable/independent/ ?
> 
> I'm not opposed to an informational document that aims to capture the various aspects of the work that's been done, although I think I'm a +1 to Joe (and Paul) as well..
> 
> -danny
> 
> 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis             
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468

There are no answers - just tradeoffs, decisions, and responses.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.redbarn.org/pipermail/ratelimits/attachments/20130417/9d39f700/attachment.htm>