> As I understand the substance of this post, the comment has been > raised (again) that this is an unlikely situation and there is no > need to make the specification more complex for unlikely cases. > > In response I would argue (again) that the specification should be > complete and provide appropriate guidance to implementors for all > situations where interoperability is required, and this case, > although not common, has been visible in the routing table already > and will likely be visible in the routing table in future.
boiling the ocean is not necessary nor it is useful > I do not see that this adds any undue complexity to implementations do you just delete rob's mail unread? randy _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
