Message-Id: <v03004204ad130baa4b64@[205.214.160.43]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 09:12:28 -0800
To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Subject: Re: Name of RFC822
Cc: ietf-drums <drums@cs.utk.edu>

At 8:53 AM 1/5/96, Keith Moore wrote:
>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.

	I almost suggested this, too, but it won't work.  RFC numbers are
not re-used.  If we try to subvert this, we will only cause problems.  What
I expect is that we will do RFC822bis.  We will generically call it that
while we also try to adopt a name.  Folks will vary in their usage.
Eventually the thing will get published with a new number.  As the new
version gets used more widely, people will really start using the new name.

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

	Well, I don't think there's much danger of losing the name 'smtp'
(with or without the 'e' for esmtp.  Same for MIME.  That means that a name
is needed for the headers, even if there IS an umbrella term for the full
set.

d/

--------------------
Dave Crocker                                                +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                                fax:  +1 408 249 6205
675 Spruce Dr.                                     dcrocker@brandenburg.com
Sunnyvale, CA  94086 USA                         http://www.brandenburg.com