From baker@dad.cs.fsu.edu  Fri Sep 25 16:50:02 1998
Received: from dad.cs.fsu.edu (dad.cs.fsu.edu [128.186.121.23])
	by dkuug.dk (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA25740
	for <sc22wg15@dkuug.dk>; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 16:50:01 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from baker@dad.cs.fsu.edu)
Received:  by dad.cs.fsu.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA05156; Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:49:01 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:49:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ted Baker <baker@dad.cs.fsu.edu>
Message-Id: <199809251449.KAA05156@dad.cs.fsu.edu>
To: OblingerJT@csd.npt.nuwc.navy.mil, jason_zions@interix.com,
        sc22wg15@dkuug.dk
Subject: Re: (wg15tag 2130) (SC22WG15.1322) RE: (wg15tag 2129) (SC22WG15.1321) FW: (SC22.1318) REQUEST TO WG CONVENERS [Fwd: FW: Year 2k]

| If they're squicked about Y2K, should we tell them that 9945-1 will blow up
| in 2038?

This gets back to my previous e-mail, about whether the issue is that
a stanard should prevent implementations from breaking, or just not
prevent them from doing the right thing.

Also, to the question of whether Y2K compliance means a very narrow thing
around the year 2000 rollover date, or a broader thing about not haveing
arbitrary restrictions on dates.

--Ted