Re: Subsumption rules omission
Fred Baker <fbaker@acc.com> Wed, 05 August 1992 19:31 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08404;
5 Aug 92 15:31 EDT
Received: from NRI.NRI.Reston.Va.US by IETF.NRI.Reston.VA.US id ab08400;
5 Aug 92 15:31 EDT
Received: from atlas.xylogics.com by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25468;
5 Aug 92 15:30 EDT
Received: by atlas.xylogics.com id AA19305 (5.65c/UK-2.1-920725);
Wed, 5 Aug 1992 15:04:08 -0400
Received: from SAFFRON.ACC.COM by atlas.xylogics.com with SMTP
id AA19239 (5.65c/UK-2.1-920725); Wed, 5 Aug 1992 15:02:28 -0400
Received: by saffron.acc.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA13899; Wed, 5 Aug 92 12:00:07 PDT
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 92 12:00:07 PDT
From: Fred Baker <fbaker@acc.com>
Message-Id: <9208051900.AA13899@saffron.acc.com>
To: jch@nr-tech.cit.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Subsumption rules omission
Cc: ietf-rip@xylogics.com
yes, it probably should require the same tag. Fred
- Subsumption rules omission Jeffrey C Honig
- Re: Subsumption rules omission Fred Baker