Ok. Jari
James Carlson kirjoitti: > Jari Arkko writes: > >>> I know of no reason to refer to the old 2023 assignment of 004f. >>> >>> >> For the purposes of pointing people to the right spec for implementing >> or understanding something, there is no reason to refer to 2023. >> >> For the purposes of knowing which numbers have been allocated, reference >> to 2023 might be useful. >> > > Once this RFC is published, it'll be immutable even if new compression > mechanisms are later defined. That means that any list it provides is > at best a hint that there are other documents to read, and can't serve > (as the IANA reference is supposed to) as a definitive list of > protocol numbers. > > If we're going to provide "helpful" references -- all that we can do > -- I think it'd be most helpful to include just the ones that > currently have some meaning. As I don't think 004f has any real > meaning, and no implementor reading this document should be attempting > an implementation of it, I think losing that one reference would be a > step in the right direction. It serves only to send readers off into > the weeds. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
