This Internet-Draft resonates strongly with me:
Jon Postel’s famous statement in RFC 1122 of “Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send” – is a principle that has long guided the design of Internet protocols and implementations of those protocols. The posture this statement advocates might promote interoperability in the short term, but that short-term advantage is outweighed by negative consequences that affect the long-term maintenance of a protocol and its ecosystem.
The onus of “liberal in what you accept” is give permission to developers/vendor to ignore validation checking & testing inputs.
Giving a developer an excuse to avoid good practice is certain to result in bad practice. And thats what has been happening with BGP / OSPF / IS-IS over the last ten years. Instead of strongly defining what MUST happen, this has encouraged people to create nasty hacks, proprietary extensions, workarounds etc etc etc.
Errors and non-standard behaviours have created security risks, errors, bugs for the last 20 years. I believe its time for well defined, strongly defined standards.
Yes, its true that weakly defined standards can adapt, extend and find alternative uses. At the same time, the overloading of standards like BGP and protocols like HTTPS make the purpose of standards pointless.
Something should change and this is one aspect of correct behaviour.
Link: draft-thomson-postel-was-wrong-01 – The Harmful Consequences of Postel’s Maxim – https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-postel-was-wrong-01