On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 11:18:32PM +0200, Jari Arkko wrote: <snip> > * "Maybe you can list the mandatory components, but I don't > see a need to look at the optional ones." Well, how do I > know that if RFC nnnn isn't listed, its (a) optional or (b) > forgotten? I say we should be explicit and list the optional > components too. </snip>
This is an interesting point. However, this begs the question of what to do when this document grows stale. Naturally, it will be tedious to update it with every new RFC. This is probably exacerbated by the fact that the list of optional RFC's will probably grow a lot faster than the list of required RFC's. If this document only listed required RFC's, it would probably be more stable and helpful in the long run. Hence, to answer your question: > Well, how do I > know that if RFC nnnn isn't listed, its (a) optional or (b) > forgotten? The answer would always be "optional". Best Regards, -jj -- Hacker is to software engineer as Climbing Mt. Everest is to building a Denny's there. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
