To: "Eric S. Raymond" <esr@snark.thyrsus.com>
Cc: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Reply-To (was Re: Issues from the past few weeks) 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 27 Sep 1997 18:54:59 -0400."
             <199709272254.SAA04316@snark.thyrsus.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 09:01:50 +1000
Message-Id: <11381.875401310@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>

    Date:        Sat, 27 Sep 1997 18:54:59 -0400 (EDT)
    From:        "Eric S. Raymond" <esr@snark.thyrsus.com>
    Message-ID:  <199709272254.SAA04316@snark.thyrsus.com>

  | I'm afraid that Dave Crocker's
  | subsequent comments eliminate #2 as an alternative.

Sorry, I don't think that Dave claims to have power of veto over drums.

  | Therefore, we must either choose #1 or open a debate on changing the
  | semantics of Reply-To, which debate would be outside the list's remit.

No, what Dave said was what the author originally meant.   What he meant
back then, and the semantics of Reply-To now are barely related (as has
been found with several other parts of 822).

  | To recapitulate: the proposal on the table  is that the 
  | third item of 4.4.4, which reads:

I assume you're referring back to 822, as there is no 4.4.4 in the
current draft.   I think if you're suggesting to Pete that he toss
away all the work that's been done, and refert to simply editing 822
you may get an impolite relaction (or perhaps not from him).

Instead of suggesting changes you would make to rfc822, as if that were the
current draft, why not suggest changes to draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-02.txt
which is?   I'm happy with it as it stands (which was the result after we
had this debate the last time around).

kre