Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5

Frank Kastenholz <kasten@ftp.com> Fri, 15 September 1995 12:54 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11874; 15 Sep 95 8:54 EDT
Received: from [132.151.1.1] by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11870; 15 Sep 95 8:54 EDT
Received: from venera.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09784; 15 Sep 95 8:54 EDT
Received: from ftp.com (wd40.ftp.com) by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-22) id <AA26704>; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 05:36:11 -0700
Received: from ftp.com by ftp.com ; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 08:36:08 -0400
Received: from mailserv-D.ftp.com by ftp.com ; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 08:36:08 -0400
Received: from kasten.europa by mailserv-D.ftp.com (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA00955; Fri, 15 Sep 95 08:34:05 EDT
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 95 08:34:05 EDT
Message-Id: <9509151234.AA00955@mailserv-D.ftp.com>
To: fred@cisco.com
Subject: Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Frank Kastenholz <kasten@ftp.com>
Reply-To: kasten@ftp.com
Cc: craig@aland.bbn.com, rreq@isi.edu
X-Orig-Sender: kasten@mailserv-d.ftp.com
Repository: mailserv-D.ftp.com, [message accepted at Fri Sep 15 08:33:59 1995]
Originating-Client: europa
Content-Length: 636

my recollection is the same as yours

 > which is to say, interpretation 1. My recollection was that there was major
 > debate here, with my current employer among those whose implementations
 > were of version 2 ("the end system is going to check it, and routing has
 > developed a spanning tree, so why should the router check it?") and that
 > interpretation lost.
 > 
 > Does anyone have other recollections or opinions?


--
Frank Kastenholz    "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy
                     present... As our case is new, so we must think anew, and
                     act anew" - A. Lincoln