Re: environment option draft

"David A. Borman" <dab@berserkly.cray.com> Mon, 11 October 1993 17:53 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa24436; 11 Oct 93 13:53 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa24431; 11 Oct 93 13:53 EDT
Received: from timbuk.cray.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01063; 11 Oct 93 13:53 EDT
Received: from hemlock.cray.com by cray.com (4.1/CRI-MX 2.19btd) id AA09910; Mon, 11 Oct 93 12:53:18 CDT
Received: by hemlock.cray.com id AA26680; 4.1/CRI-5.6; Mon, 11 Oct 93 12:53:12 CDT
Received: from cray.com (timbuk.cray.com) by hemlock.cray.com id AA26676; 4.1/CRI-5.6; Mon, 11 Oct 93 12:53:06 CDT
Received: from frenzy.cray.com by cray.com (4.1/CRI-MX 2.19btd) id AA09892; Mon, 11 Oct 93 12:53:04 CDT
Received: by frenzy.cray.com id AA02937; 4.1/CRI-5.6; Mon, 11 Oct 93 12:54:11 CDT
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 93 12:54:11 CDT
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "David A. Borman" <dab@berserkly.cray.com>
Message-Id: <9310111754.AA02937@frenzy.cray.com>
To: sjogren@tgv.com, stevea@lachman.com
Subject: Re: environment option draft
Cc: klensin@infoods.mit.edu, telnet-ietf@cray.com

> sjogren@TGV.COM (Sam Sjogren) writes:
> >Any problem with just including [the interoperability document] in the 
> >environment option RFC?
> 
> No, no problem.  It's just that I believe that it is our intent that these hacks
> die off in time.  Therefore, I would prefer not to clutter the main spec with an
> annoying diversion.

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, dab@cray.com