Re: Purge packet

[[e-mail]]

Russell,

> When a client supports the "Destination Prefix Extension", what
> benefit is the Request-ID in the Purge packet?  Isn't this duplicate
> information, therefore a higher risk of error.
> 
> To send the "Destination Prefix Extension" in a Purge packet,
> the server must remember whether that client supplied this extension
> in the original Request packet.  Correct?
> 
> Why not remove the Request-ID from Purge packet and add a mask field to
> the Purge packet?  I don't think it really complicates the client to
> remove the Request-ID from the Purge packet.  Will servers really need to
> check the Request-ID in Purge packet acknowledgements?
> 
> I propose that the Purge packet be changed, by removing the Request-ID
> and adding a mask field.
> 
> -- Russell
> 
I support the addition of the mask field.

David.