On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> >Speaking of which, I'm not sure whether there exists IETF practise for
> >this..
> >Should there be notes kept on upcoming changes/caveats of different RFC's
> >published by ipngwg?
>
> maybe this is time to compile "host requirement". Hi Marc ;-)
Can "problems" like these be addresses by writing a completely new RFC?
Sure, if it were decided to never advance current RFC's, then writing new
ones would help. ;-)
But would it make sense to record some bits against current RFC's, so that
nothing gets lost/forgotten when revising them? This way the information
would be available in "raw" (I'd say draft, but that might have strong
connotations) form?
For example, once upon a time I was reading through KAME nd6_rtr.c, and
saw:
#if 0 /* RFC 2462 5.5.3 (e) */
[...]
#else /* update from Jim Bound, (ipng 6712) */
[...]
#endif
Now try to figure out _which_ of the dozens of possible mail archivers
that could be on.. ;-)
Is this against IETF methodology? Would doing this mean that new
"revisional" I-D's would have to be started on the subject?
--
Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
