Date: 27 Aug 1997 17:04:00 +0200
From: kai@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen)
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Message-ID: <6cevJOIEcsB@khms.westfalen.de>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.95.970826132519.1630E-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com>
Subject: Re: New IETF draft on "Messages between Email and Netnews"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding?
References: <v03007831b020df9b9880@[130.237.150.138]> <Pine.SOL.3.95.970826132519.1630E-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com>
Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail.

Chris.Newman@innosoft.com (Chris Newman)  wrote on 26.08.97 in <Pine.SOL.3.95.970826132519.1630E-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com>:

> On Wed, 20 Aug 1997, Jacob Palme wrote:
> > We seem to agree that "Reply-To" should be redefined to mean
> > "Personal-Reply-To" and that a new e-mail header "Group-Reply-To"
> > should be added. I would prefer that all this is done in the 822bis
> > document, but if drums does not accept this, perhaps the 822bis
> > document could restrict the meaning of "Reply-To" and a separate
> > standard could define "Group-Reply-To"?
>
> Speaking as WG chair:
>
> DRUMS is forbidden from adding new functionality.  Without this
> restriction, we'd never get done.
>
> I don't think there is any concensus on whether Reply-To should mean
> "personal-reply-to", "group-reply-to" or what 822bis says.  In the
> absense of concensus to change, we stick with the status quo (which is
> what 822bis says).  Our only other option is to drop Reply-To from 822bis
> completely, and I doubt we'd get concensus on that.  If someone thinks my
> impression of group concensus is wrong, please speak up.
>
> As WG chair, I have to rule suggestions to add Group-Reply-To or similar
> things out of order on the grounds it is new functionality.  I don't think
> it's a bad suggestion and it might even help fix some problems with
> Reply-To.  But I suspect the ensuing debate is a rathole and would
> significantly delay the completion of DRUMS.  Given that DRUMS is already
> long overdue, Group-Reply-To will have to be deferred to future work.

Would it be possible to have some language indicating that people are  
working on refinements to Reply-To:, so 822bis users at least are not  
completely surprised if they are later pointed to another RFC that  
contains these refinements? It would obviously have to be outside the  
normative parts of 822bis.

Maybe some sort of "future directions" paragraph? Other stuff could go  
there as well, that can't go in the main part because of referencing work  
that's not done.

MfG Kai