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.
The new values could also be defined at the appendix of icmp-v3, but then we'd have to agree on the proper names now, and there could be confusion between the revision of the advanced api and icmp-v3...
-- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
