Subject: Vendor IDs and reserved values

From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 17:06:17 -0700

Hi again. Section 3.12 says:
      If parameter values "reserved for use by consenting parties" are
      used, they must be preceded by a Vendor ID payload that disambiguates
      them.
This will hinder interoperability. Given that Vendor IDs are also 
"reserved for use by consenting parties", this requirement doesn't 
make sense. A private value is a private value: the two sides have 
already agreed to what it means. Sending a private Vendor ID doesn't 
add any information, and is another place where a failure can happen. 
This sentence should be removed.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 22:39:50 -0400

> This sentence should be removed.

I agree. Any objections?

      --charlie