>>>>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 06:13:22 -0700,
>>>>> Kristine Adamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Thanks for the responses. But if RFC3542 is not updated, won't this
> adversely affect the portability of applications that references these new
> codes?
Yes, it will. However, the point is whether the portability issue is
serious enough to require a revision of RFC3542. Different people may
have different opinions on this, and I personally don't think it's big
enough.
As someone else in this thread pointed out, this type of issue can
always happen when the IETF standardizes any new ICMP types/codes,
extension header identifier (the number of the "next header" field"),
whatever. Clearly, we cannot update the API specification every time
we see this type of event, so we need to make a consensus on how
serious the related portability issue is. If others agree on the
severity, I won't oppose to the conclusion.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
