> 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
