Hi all
I've just noticed that section 3.12 of the bis draft has the following text:
Writers of Internet-Drafts who wish to extend this protocol MUST
define a Vendor ID payload to announce the ability to implement the
extension in the Internet-Draft. It is expected that Internet-Drafts
Hi Yoav,
If we don't require a VID, what's there to prevent a conflict between two
vendors' private notifications, with the recipient misinterpreting the
sender's notification? Note that we never required private notification
numbers to be picked at random, so conflict are likely to occur.
Thanks
WARNING: contains banned part
--- Begin Message ---
桔牥❥潮桴湩潴瀠敲敶瑮愠挠湯汦捩ⱴ戠瑵琠慨⁴敳瑣潩灳捥晩捩污祬爊晥牥潴∠牗瑩牥景䤠瑮牥敮牤晡獴⸢䰠潯楫杮琠牨畯桧琠敨䤠瑮牥敮ੴ牄晡獴琠慨⁴硥整摮䤠䕋㉶潮敮猠祡猠浯瑥楨杮氠歩ⱥ∠獵潮楴楦慣楴湯琊灹㜱㔬㘴湡灳捥晩⁹畳灰牯⁴楷桴嘠䑉瘠污敵攊戱㜵慡㔴〷㈲㈵愶戶㐴〳摢昲ち〱∱ਊ桔祥愠汬樠獵⁴慨敶愠渠瑯晩捩瑡潩慰汹慯楷桴琠灹吢䅂戠⁹䅉䅎•湡桷瑡癥牥琠敨⁹潤映牯椠瑮牥灯琠獥獴漠潦捡畴污椠瑮牥灯椠桴楦汥敲慭湩湵灳捥晩敩ਊ潓眠桳畯摬攠瑩敨湥潣牵条瑳晵楬敫琠
OK. I won't use Evolution's MAPI plug-in any more...
The section is addressed specifically to I-D writers.
All I-Ds that I've seen don't have text that says "use notification type X
until IANA assigns something else, and in the meantime, use Vendor ID
e1b57aa457022526a6b4430bd2fa0101"
I d
