clarification on the Purge format direction/status/positions
gardo@vnet.ibm.com Fri, 03 November 1995 19:42 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa22454;
3 Nov 95 14:42 EST
Received: from guelah.nexen.com by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa22447;
3 Nov 95 14:42 EST
Received: from maelstrom.nexen.com (maelstrom.nexen.com [204.249.99.5]) by
guelah.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA11868;
Fri, 3 Nov 1995 14:13:55 -0500
Received: (from root@localhost) by maelstrom.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id
OAA29009 for rolc-out; Fri, 3 Nov 1995 14:22:21 -0500
Received: from guelah.nexen.com (guelah.nexen.com [204.249.96.19]) by
maelstrom.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA29000 for
<rolc@nexen.com>; Fri, 3 Nov 1995 14:22:18 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: gardo@vnet.ibm.com
Received: from vnet.IBM.COM (vnet.ibm.com [199.171.26.4]) by guelah.nexen.com
(8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA11836 for <rolc@nexen.com>;
Fri, 3 Nov 1995 14:09:18 -0500
Message-Id: <199511031909.OAA11836@guelah.nexen.com>
Received: from RALVM29.VNET.IBM.COM by vnet.IBM.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3)
with BSMTP id 1884; Fri, 03 Nov 95 14:16:17 EST
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 95 14:16:17 EST
To: bcole@cisco.com, rolc@nexen.com, genecox@vnet.ibm.com,
cdebruin@vnet.ibm.com
Subject: clarification on the Purge format direction/status/positions
X-Orig-Sender: owner-rolc@nexen.com
Precedence: bulk
X-Info: Submissions to rolc@nexen.com
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to rolc-request@nexen.com
X-Info: Archives for rolc via
ftp://ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/ietf-mail-archive/rolc/
Sender: ietf-archive-request@vnet.ibm.com
FROM: Russell.Gardo@nexen.com
*** Resending note of 11/02/95 21:04
telephone: (919) 254-0896
SUBJECT: clarification on the Purge format direction/status/positions
Bruce,
>> But, if we are going to adopt the mask stuff at all then I propose
>> strongly that we add it's support in receivers as MANDATORY citing both
>> the "options are bad" and the "be liberal in what you accept"
>> principles.
[...]
>I think this is a bit of a leap over current requirements.
It's not clear if there are objections to the above proposal:
Are there any objections to putting the mask in the mandatory,
protocol-specific part of the Purge packet?
-- Russell