Re: clarification on the Purge format direction/status/positions

James Luciani <luciani@nexen.com> Fri, 03 November 1995 23:51 UTC

Message-Id: <199511032328.SAA20632@shovel.nexen.com>
To: gardo@vnet.ibm.com, Russell.Gardo@nexen.com
Subject: Re: clarification on the Purge format direction/status/positions
cc: rolc@nexen.com
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 1995 18:28:27 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: James Luciani <luciani@nexen.com>
Precedence: bulk

Russell,

Maybe you were not listening but I objected to making this MANDATORY
though I am in favor of its use on a discretionary basis.
> >> 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?                                    

Regards,
-- Jim Luciani
__________________________________________________________________________
James V. Luciani    Ascom Nexion                    voice: +1 508 266-3450
luciani@nexen.com   289 Great Rd., Acton MA 01720   FAX: +1 508 266-2300

clarification on the Purge format direction/statu… gardo
Re: clarification on the Purge format direction/s… James Luciani