Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id RAA12768; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 17:57:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.10); Wed, 29 Jul 1998 17:57:27 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id RAA12730; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 17:57:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from THOR.INNOSOFT.COM (THOR.INNOSOFT.COM [192.160.253.66]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id RAA12699; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 17:57:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from elwood.innosoft.com ("port 63307"@ELWOOD.INNOSOFT.COM) by INNOSOFT.COM (PMDF V5.1-11 #U3049) with SMTP id <01IZZ6CJDWI899ED1I@INNOSOFT.COM> for drums@cs.utk.edu; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 14:55:38 PDT Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 14:56:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Chris Newman Subject: Re: DATA/RSET/NOOP arguments In-reply-to: To: Detailed Revision/Update of Message Standards Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Originator-Info: login-id=chris; server=THOR.INNOSOFT.COM On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, John C Klensin wrote: > Unless new arguments are introduced or a strong WG > consensus emerges (Chris's job to determine that), this > text will be left as is. Everyone who feels the document editor should be directed to spend time making the spec ambiguous with respect to the handling of extra arguments to DATA/RSET/NOOP, please speak up now. - Chris