Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id SAA20855; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 18:48:41 -0400
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.6); Tue, 2 Jul 1996 18:48:35 -0400
Received: from bonn.software.com ([198.17.234.125]) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id SAA20830; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 18:48:30 -0400
Received: from bonn.software.com ([10.4.91.7]) by bonn.software.com
          (post.office MTA v2.0 0529 ID# 0-10001) with ESMTP id AAA3579;
          Tue, 2 Jul 1996 15:47:52 -0700
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.6 3/24/96
To: Chris Newman <chrisn+@CMU.EDU>
cc: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: From the Chair: WG Last Call 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 02 Jul 1996 16:48:33 EDT."
             <836340513.2917.0@nifty.andrew.cmu.edu> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 15:47:52 -0700
From: michael.derrico@software.com (Michael D'Errico)
Message-ID: <19960702224752.AAA3579@bonn.software.com>

> Unless at least two people post technical objections to a given issue,
> I will consider the 15 issues from John Klensin's "issues apparently
> resolved" list to be WG rough concensus.

The list looks good, but I have one question regarding:

    (12) The concept of adding a special "server about to
    shut down connection" error code is dropped for lack of
    consensus (and maybe lack of interest).

Is the recommended behavior in such a case going to be that the server
silently closes the connection or that it sends a 421 response as suggested
by RFC821?

Mike