--Richard
On Nov 30, 2010, at 7:02 PM, Thomson, Martin wrote:
> On 2010-12-01 at 10:02:56, Ted Hardie wrote:
>> I think you need to clarify whether "private" means "unknowable to
>> others" or something
>> else. Relaxing the CAtype registry to fcfs would make it possible to
>> use it for local
>> extensions, but it would not be private. What value of "private" is
>> required here?
>
> I think that Richard intended "private" to be "local" or "constrained scope". That is, interoperability is not widely sought, just within a specific community.
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
