On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
No, why would we point out to people that our protocols are clever
enough to not require any filtering? Or use the same name for the
same field in different documents? That's way too much trouble with
all those RFCs we have to write that no one in operations reads
anyway because they're too long and too hard to read, and which are
too hard to find out that they exist in the first place.
This is what section 4.3.3 is about. I grant you that it doesn't seem
to spell out our protocol design wisdom :-), but it does mention
TTL=255 checking.