Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id SAA02505; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 18:06:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.7); Thu, 4 Sep 1997 18:06:08 -0400
Received:  
        by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id SAA02447; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 18:06:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dataarch-mail.mcit.com (dataarch-mail.mcit.com [166.35.80.199]) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id SAA02406; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 18:05:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tp7.jck.com ([166.35.80.202]) by DATAARCH-MAIL.MCIT.COM
 (PMDF V5.1-5 #8388) with SMTP id <01IN95FK1DAC0003OI@DATAARCH-MAIL.MCIT.COM>
 for drums@cs.utk.edu; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 18:07:01 EDT
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 18:04:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: John C Klensin <klensin@mci.net>
Subject: Re: Text about X-headers
In-reply-to: <v0311070eb0349821aba1@[130.237.158.12]>
To: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
Cc: drums@cs.utk.edu
Reply-to: John C Klensin <klensin@mci.net>
Message-id: <SIMEON.9709041859.P@tp7.Jck.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Simeon for Win32 Version 4.1.2 Build (32)
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Priority: NORMAL
X-Authentication: none


On Thu, 04 Sep 1997 18:00:14 +0100 Jacob Palme 
<jpalme@dsv.su.se> wrote:

> Do you mean that the 822bis document should not mention
> X-headers at all? Or do you want to keep the text about
> X-headers from RFC 822? My text was intended as a replacement
> for the text in RFC 822, and meant to explain this more
> fully than the RFC 822 text does.

I'm happy to see stronger text than 822, and don't think we 
can avoid mentioning them.  My reluctance is about getting 
into a situation in which registration becomes a substitute 
for standardization and/or community review for headers 
that are intended to be used interoperably.

I generally agree with Chris's characterization of this.

    john