Subject: Re: Open issue: requester identifier in DPV response

From: Peter Sylvester <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 11:43:07 +0200 (MET DST)

Denis, 

Are you asking for a requirement to be included in the
text that indicates:

" A protocol that implements the requirements of this document
  MUST NOT, never ever, implement other features, even optional ones. "

> > 
> > The list of potential useful additional feature is as endless as the
> > list of useless features. 
> 
> No. We would not make the effort of writing these requirements if we were
> going to allow a protocol that supports many other features that are *not*
> required.
>

---

From: Denis Pinkas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:39:22 +0200

Peter,

>   MUST NOT, never ever, implement other features, even optional ones. "

I do not think that we need any sentence. Now, if we really needed one, here
is a proposal:

The basic protocol SHOULD NOT support any additional requirement besides the
requirements listed in this document. Any additional feature not listed
SHOULD only be supported using extension fields.

Denis