Subject: RE: Update to RFC 2489 (REMINDER!)

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 15:36:22 -0400

At 11:40 AM 6/9/00 -0500, you wrote:
>I'd really like to see some clarification on the "private use" option
>namespace.
>
>[...]  could we define "private use" as "not to be implemented in a
>product sold to the general public"?  Or a requirement that private use
>options be changable by the end user?

I don't think we want to give up the "private use" portion of the 
namespace; as you point out, to do so will result in chaos and conflicts in 
the use of option codes.  I will put stronger language into the revision 
for RFC2489.

- Ralph

---

From: "Barr Hibbs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:13:36 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 12:36 PM

> namespace; as you point out, to do so will result in chaos and 
> conflicts in the use of option codes.  I will put stronger language 
> into the revision for RFC2489.
> 

...I concur....

--Barr