Mohan Parthasarathy writes:
>
> >
> > 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.
Doubtful. Trying to capture those 500+ emails worth
of justificatin sounds doomed to failure. Brian's
simple modification leaves everybody convinced
that it was their own nuace on the justification
that put it over the top. So much the better.
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
