> > Personally, I don't have a big problem with the suggestion > itself, but I do not agree with it, simply because it's a > meaningless restriction. I'd rather see a > separate BCP for this, or at least say should not and > explain why. > I agree with Hesham here. Should we not explain why we are taking this stance instead of just saying MUST NOT ? It might prevent another 500+ emails in the future.
My 2 cents mohan > Finally, I do hope to see the addrarch RFC in DS in my > lifetime. > > Hesham > > PS: You know many designs are not perfect the first > time around and band aids are often needed later. > In this case the problem is not that big. IMHO > changing fundamental RFCs when people are shipping > products is worse than having a band aid for SLs. > Please, let's move on and get a BCP. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
