Pekka Savola wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Joe Touch wrote: >> I thought what was being asked was: > ... >> - require its support for new messages (that seems reasonable - or at >> least that new messages MUST describe whether this extension is >> supported, and SHOULD support it unless obviously interfering). > > I'm not sure if an Experimental RFC could mandate the former, but I'm > pretty sure folks agree that if someone from IETF defines new ICMP > extensions, at some point it's valid to ask whether the proposer has > read this document.
Good point; in that case, new messages SHOULD describe... If this gets revisited to go standards track, the wording would be revised. I wouldn't drop it to MAY or drop it out; the implications of standardizing this doc should be retained. Joe
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
