Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id CAA27476; Sat, 30 Nov 1996 02:04:32 -0500
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.7); Sat, 30 Nov 1996 02:02:27 -0500
Received:  
        by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id CAA27431; Sat, 30 Nov 1996 02:02:22 -0500
Received: from koobera.math.uic.edu (qmailr@koobera.math.uic.edu [128.248.178.247]) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id CAA27425; Sat, 30 Nov 1996 02:02:19 -0500
Received: (qmail 12723 invoked by uid 666); 30 Nov 1996 07:07:53 -0000
Date: 30 Nov 1996 07:07:53 -0000
Message-ID: <19961130070753.12722.qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu>
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@koobera.math.uic.edu>
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-00.txt

> Do not wait for concensus on every matter, otherwise there will never be a
> document.

There has to be a clear distinction between (1) the changes already
approved by the working group and (2) changes still under discussion.

Why would anyone want this distinction to be blurred?

Obvious implementation: Maintain a draft, called 822bis, showing #1.
Propose text for #2. Merge the text into 822bis when---and only when---
the working group agrees.

---Dan