Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id LAA18389; Fri, 5 Jan 1996 11:54:33 -0500
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.3); Fri, 5 Jan 1996 11:54:09 -0500
Received: from wilma.cs.utk.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id LAA18276; Fri, 5 Jan 1996 11:54:06 -0500
Received: from LOCALHOST by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.11c-UTK)
          id LAA03575; Fri, 5 Jan 1996 11:54:04 -0500
Message-Id: <199601051654.LAA03575@wilma.cs.utk.edu>
X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
cc: ietf-drums <drums@cs.utk.edu>, moore@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Name of RFC822 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 05 Jan 1996 12:33:42 +0100."
             <Pine.SUN.3.91.960105122704.1142D-100000@ester.dsv.su.se> 
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 1996 11:53:58 -0500
Sender: moore@cs.utk.edu

> RFC822 ought to have such a name now when its RFC number will
> not be 822 any more. Some suggestions:

There's so much investment in the name RFC822 that I've seriously
wondered if the new RFC should refer to the new mail format
as RFC822bis or RFC822++ or some such so everyone will know
what we're talking about.

If we're not careful it will end up being called DRUMS, much
as the notifications stuff is now being referred to as NOTARY.

Keith