On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 10:49:46 +0200
Roman Pletka <rap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Bas Bloemsaat wrote:
> >>Indeed, would people stop quoting from RFC 985 and
> >>RFC 826.
> >
> >
> > RFC 826 is referenced from 1009 as describing ARP. So in effect it does
> > define a standard.
>
> RFC 1009 is obsolete too (by 1812 for the sake of completeness).
> Please stop quoting obsolete RFC's.
>
> -- Roman
One of the big advantages of RFCs is that everybody can read them. In fact if
one names a special RFC for proving something he said, he should at least have
read it once:
<quote RFC 1812>
3.3.2 Address Resolution Protocol - ARP
Routers that implement ARP MUST be compliant and SHOULD be
unconditionally compliant with the requirements in [INTRO:2].
...
INTRO:2.
Internet Engineering Task Force (R. Braden, Editor),
"Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers", STD 3,
RFC 1122, USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1989.
</quote>
=>
<qoute RFC 1122>
2.3.2 Address Resolution Protocol -- ARP
2.3.2.1 ARP Cache Validation
An implementation of the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)
[LINK:2] MUST provide a mechanism to flush out-of-date cache
entries. If this mechanism involves a timeout, it SHOULD be
possible to configure the timeout value.
...
[LINK:2] "An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol," D. Plummer, RFC-826,
November 1982.
</quote>
=>
RFC-826 is _valid_
Why do you think it is not valid, Roman? Where do you read that?
Regards,
Stephan
|