On 2/5/2010 2:37 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Oh, OK, that is fine for conformance of course, but leaves things
> open when you are talking about generating strings. If we want the
> new recommendation to be a MUST, we may have to consider wording to
> make it clear how widely it applies. Many existing specs may be
> affected implicitly.
Would something like this work?
In the absence of a conflicting specification, ... MUST ... At the time
of this writing the following specifications are known to conflict: <list>
Doug
PS, I'm sure the thought has occurred to others already, but the fact
that something like this has become so complicated is almost certainly a
symptom that something is wrong on a more fundamental level ....
--
Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
