Subject: Re: 2842

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:45:43 -0400

I've finally read through this whole thread.  Sorry for chiming in 
late.  Anyway, the original problem cited was:

At 5:03 PM -0800 3/25/02, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
>During the IESG review Alex Zinin brought up an issue that the
>the following text from the current spec is a bit underspecified:
>
>    A particular capability, as identified by its Capability Code, may
>    occur more than once within the Optional Parameter.

Let me start by saying that I cannot now imagine a good reason for 
the spec to say this.  In fact, let me speculate that we are arguing 
about a typo, and that the simplest fix is to add a single word:

    A particular capability, as identified by its Capability Code, may
    NOT occur more than once within the Optional Parameter.

Done, IMO.

Is there any real, practical reason for any of the "well you mostly 
shouldn't send multiple capabilities but then again you can if you 
really want to" texts that have been circulated?  Seems to be 
excessive specification and complexity for no payback.

Thanks,

--John

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 12:11:35 -0400

Following up to myself...

Jeff Haas pointed out to me that 2858 takes advantage of this bug in 
2842, so it's too late to stuff the genie back in the bottle.

Under the circumstances, I withdraw my comments.

--John