Subject: Re: draft-ietf-dhc-csr-00.txt

From: Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 20:22:35 -0800

>I fully agree with you. We MUST spell out the expected behavoir. I have
>no problem in these routes being ignored if that is the stated behavoir.
>I assume you mean that the individual route is ignored, not the entire
>list of routes in the option? We should be clear about this as well.

Yes. Just the defective route entry itself, not other valid route entries 
in the packet (which may be contained in the same csr option, or in a 
separate csr option if the packet contains more than one instance of the 
csr option).

Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
 * <A HREF="http://ResComp.Stanford.EDU/~cheshire/">Web Page</A>
 * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 00:06:29 -0500

> separate csr option if the packet contains more than one instance of the 

Do youse (New York second person plural) feel that the change I made
is sufficiently explicit about this, or should I make it more
explicit?

			       _MelloN_