Re: environment option draft

Marjo Mercado <> Tue, 12 October 1993 15:44 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06396; 12 Oct 93 11:44 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06391; 12 Oct 93 11:44 EDT
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11039; 12 Oct 93 11:44 EDT
Received: from by (4.1/CRI-MX 2.19btd) id AA10787; Tue, 12 Oct 93 10:44:29 CDT
Received: by id AA17383; 4.1/CRI-5.6; Tue, 12 Oct 93 10:44:22 CDT
Received: from ( by id AA17377; 4.1/CRI-5.6; Tue, 12 Oct 93 10:44:18 CDT
Received: from by (4.1/CRI-MX 2.19btd) id AA10754; Tue, 12 Oct 93 10:44:15 CDT
Received: from by with SMTP (16.8/15.5+IOS 3.13) id AA16374; Tue, 12 Oct 93 08:44:13 -0700
Received: from localhost by with SMTP (16.6/15.5+IOS 3.20+cup+OMrelay) id AA14513; Tue, 12 Oct 93 08:43:42 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: "David A. Borman" <>
Subject: Re: environment option draft
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 11 Oct 93 12:54:11 PDT." <>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 08:43:40 PDT
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Marjo Mercado <>

Hi Dave,

I suggest that in order to maximize the probability of future interoperability 
with implementors of RFC 1408 that we require that the heuristics be 


Marjo Mercado
Hewlett-Packard Company

>>I agree with Steve.  The interoperability document only refers to
>>the original option number, implementations of the new option number
>>do not need to worry about the reversed var/value definition problem
>>(which is the whole point of getting a new option number).

			-David Borman,