JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?=
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>>> 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.
Suggestion:
1) Set up an issue tracker for this (and perhaps every IPv6 RFC for
which there are some known errors/omissions?) that keeps track of
these sorts of things. That way folk will be able to more easily
find the list of outstanding issues (and their likely resolution),
and we (the IETF community) won't lose track of them.
2) Although it may be overkill in this case, one could easily publish
a (very!) short RFC just listing the additional code points, so
that they are documened in the RFC series, and folk looking at the
older RFC can find the new RFC via the "updated by" tag.
Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
