[Ietf-not43] Suggestions of changes to the requirements document

[Vittorio Bertola]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:23:30 +0100, you wrote:

>What the answer is on such "private" fields is policy as well.

Ok - I got your point, you're right. I'm still wondering whether, in
case the decision is "hide the field behind a <<private>> indication",
such indication should be made standard (or at least recommended) to
increase interoperability (for example, the client could parse the
field and recognize such standard answer). But OTOH some registries
might want, for example, to replace it with a message in the local
language.
--=20
vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
-------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------