On May 2, 2013, at 12:23 AM, "Schulz, Martin" <[email protected]> wrote:

...

My overall point: if we start exploring the path of re-initialization

a) it could solve a lot of Jeff Hammond's originally-cited problems b) and a lot of the issues that stemmed from a) c) we should make it allowable to stay initialized under the covers (i.e., a quality of implementation issue).

Agreed as well. I am actually not sure whether from a standard point of view we can actually distinguish whether an implementation stays initialized or not.

We can do whatever we want in the standard. :-) That being said, I agree that it would seem better to not mandate it one way or the other -- allow implementations to do whatever they want/need.

What would it mean to not allow it?

Doves will cry? -- Jeff Squyres [email protected] For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/