Letters reserved for future use

[Jim Blandy]

On 11/14/05, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> A reserved "long command" prefix that isn't in the query namespace
> might help aesthetically, but would offer no technical value.

Isn't that what 'v' is allegedly for?

The whole thing about using organizational names in packet formats, as
recommended for the query packets, seems a bit like overengineering. 
If we're responsive, it should be enough for people to simply post
here saying that they've defined a 'u' packet that does thus-and-so. 
Even if we don't like the packet, we can at least act as an ad-hoc
"assigned numbers authority" and note that it's been used somewhere.