Re: problems with RFC 1063

Steve Deering <deering@pescadero.stanford.edu> Mon, 27 November 1989 18:26 UTC

Received: from decwrl.dec.com by acetes.pa.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34) id AA07205; Mon, 27 Nov 89 10:26:42 PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com; id AA16389; Mon, 27 Nov 89 10:26:39 -0800
Received: by Pescadero.Stanford.EDU (5.59/25-eef) id AA00692; Mon, 27 Nov 89 10:25:59 PDT
Date: 27 Nov 1989 10:09-PST
From: Steve Deering <deering@pescadero.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: problems with RFC 1063
To: Craig Partridge <craig@nnsc.nsf.net>
Cc: mtudwg
Message-Id: <89/11/27 1009.869@pescadero.stanford.edu>
In-Reply-To: Craig Partridge's message of Mon, 27 Nov 89 082109 -0500

>	The only problem [with RFC-1063] I'm aware of is that, in principle,
>	gateways don't like options.

I listed five problems with RFC-1063 in the Introduction section of my
draft RFC, of which gateway dislike for options is only one.  The
existance and significance of those problems is, of course, open to
debate.

Steve