[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-icmpv6-filtering-recs to informational
Pekka Savola wrote:
Iljitsch's previous comments *were* actioned. v01 (which is the one
that Fred was referring to and has gone to IETF Last Call) already had
the hop count/hop limit issue fixed and an added note in s1 to direct
impatient ICMPv6 experts straight to the rules section.
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
No, why would we point out to people that our protocols are clever
enough to not require any filtering? Or use the same name for the
same field in different documents? That's way too much trouble with
all those RFCs we have to write that no one in operations reads
anyway because they're too long and too hard to read, and which are
too hard to find out that they exist in the first place.
This is what section 4.3.3 is about. I grant you that it doesn't seem
to spell out our protocol design wisdom :-), but it does mention
Hopefully we can publicise this document more widely once it has been
approved/published so that those real operations people can read it.