Subject: Re: ppp(4) & IPv6?
To: Perry E. Metzger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Christos Zoulas <email@example.com>
Date: 01/10/2005 14:21:36
On Jan 10, 2:13pm, firstname.lastname@example.org ("Perry E. Metzger") wrote:
-- Subject: Re: ppp(4) & IPv6?
| Hubert Feyrer <email@example.com> writes:
| > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| >>> Is the BUGS section in ppp.4 still valid:
| >>> Currently, only the ip(4) protocol is supported.
| >> Ipv6 is supported too.
| > OK, I've removed the BUGS section from ppp.4.
| I'm not sure that is correct. Consider that we have other protocols
| like clnp still in our source tree. PPP can in theory support such
| things, but our ppp does not (not that many people care).
| BUGS should probably just be updated to say that only ipv4 and ipv6
| are supported.
Sure, we can do that. But why be anal about? If someones opens a PR
to fix cnlp on ppp, we can choose to fix it or add it to the man page.
I think that for the most part, manual pages document what a system
can do, and if it has any significant deficiencies, what it cannot do.
I don't see the inability of do cnlp or whatever else as a significant
deficiency worth while documenting.