On (03/10/09 17:33), Peter Memishian wrote: > > Is there a reason icmp_status_report() was considered out-of-scope for > this work?
Vasumathi can correct me if I am wrong, but I think the intention was to break 4616660 off into smaller fragments until all the status reports listed in 4616660 were covered (hence the new bug, 6806928). I don't know if the webrev covers all _status-es except icmp_status? --Sowmini _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
