Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 16:31:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed charter update
In-reply-to: <3.0.32.19971106110345.00883880@pop.dial.pipex.com>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ACM.ORG>
Cc: Detailed Revision/Update of Message Standards <drums@cs.utk.edu>
Message-id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.971106161429.21374V-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Originator-Info: login-id=chris; server=thor.innosoft.com

On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, Graham Klyne wrote:
> I understand the "reply-to" debate has rumbled on and on rather (guilty as
> charged, m'lud) but I am not convinced that bringing new reply headers into
> scope is going to help get it resolved ay sooner.

It is already explicitly within our charter to "fix" reply-to and I
believe we have concensus that it needs corrections/clarifications. 
However, any clarification to reply-to which disambiguates the current
situation will likely outlaw certain functions for which reply-to is
currently used.  Therefore I don't believe we can effectively evaluate
proposed corrections/clarifications to reply-to unless we also consider
the new features necessary to replace uses which are outlawed.  I'll give
an example of such a proposal in a separate message.

Do you still object to the proposed charter update?

		- Chris