>seeing the quotes from RFC1812 and the discussion, I must say
>that the existence of vendors who knowingly violate the RFC is
>not a particularly compelling argument for NetBSD doing the same.

certainly not.  or else why don't we just follow micro$oft and their
behaviorisms...

>I can't speak to the status of RFC1812 (and I'm not on-line at
>the moment, so I can't easily check), but I would be surprised if
>it would fall into the general category of "not a standard, but a
>recommendation for your information".

ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc-index.txt says

1812 Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers. F. Baker. June 1995.
     (Format: TXT=415740 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1716, RFC1009) (Status:
     PROPOSED STANDARD)

so it's somewhere in between.  but more than a "gee, we'd really like
it if..."

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."