24 Dec 95 22:06, Paul Edwards wrote to Jerry Cain:

 JC>> Sounds reasonable, but... so that I don't step on anyone's toes, can 
 JC>> you share the reference to this fact?

 > I checked FTS-1 + FTS-6, but they didn't say that, so I probably heard 
 > David Nugent and others say so in this echo in the past, but I can't be 
 > sure.  I can be sure about the x'FE' and x'FF', as I do distinctly 
 > remember David Nugent saying so in this echo.

* Forwarded from net_dev by andrew clarke (3:633/267.1{at}fidonet).
* Originally by: david nugent (3:632/348), 19 Jul 94 16:10.
* Originally to: andrew clarke (3:635/727.4).

{at}MSGID: 3:632/348{at}fidonet e3929e90
{at}REPLY: 3:635/727.4{at}fidonet 2e2ac882
{at}PID: MaltEd/2 1.0.b6

 > Perhaps David Nugent can clear this up, David?

Use x'00' for "in development" software. This is the
long-established custom.

Once you apply for a product code using the form found in FSC-0002.003,
you'll be requested to use x'fe' until such time as the FTSC modify FTS-1
for use with 16-bit product codes.

Do not use x'ff' under ANY circumstances at this point in time. It is
reserved by the FTSC.

david

-+-
 + Origin: Unique Computing Pty Ltd (3:632/348)
{at}PATH: 632/348 635/503 502 125 727

--- Msgedsq/2 3.30