|
> Yes. I suggest that the Extended attributes draft (and maybe even the > guidelines document) contain text that says "Extended attributes with > Vendor-Id of zero (0) are not to be interpreted as VSA's within the > meaning of the other drafts". You might be able to make that recommendation with respect to implementations that understand Extended Attributes (e.g. implementations of the Extended Attribute specification). But how can we say that with respect to existing implementations? This implies that legacy implementations will treat Extended Attributes like VSAs (e.g. ignore them if they don't understand them). |