>>> [...2292 -> 3542...]
>> [...]?  If so, it would probably make sense to keep the old API
>> around, as well.
> we can't keep both of them, as they use the same #define symbols
> (with different behavior).

Surely we could at least limit the damage to people who want to build
software written to 2292 to something like -DIPV6_RFC2292 (which would
then make everything switch back to 2292's API)?

That's sure a lot better (for almost all values of "better") than
telling people with N-zillion-line third-party programs "sorry, get the
author to rewrite it all to this new RFC that came out last month".
(Okay, maybe not last month by the time this happens, but you get the
idea.)

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B