From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Thu May 13 2004 - 05:49:22 CDT
In <409BFB26.9050101@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>Charles Lindsey wrote:
>> So I think the rough consensus is now established in principle, although
>> the wording may yet change.
>Wrong; there remain substantive objections from several parties.
From two parties.
> The objections
>date from draft 12, which has the objectionable wording, and that was after
>one of the co-chairs had ruled that "Re:" was not part of the defined syntax
>and that the only possible reason to include it would be if some protocol
>issue were applicable. After discussion, not one example of a protocol issue
>was given. And all of that happened before draft 12 was published.
Examples of protocol issues have been presented on this list within the
last week. The interoperability problems are relatively mild, which is why
they merit only SHOULD wording rather than MUST wording.
>At minimum, the Chair should have a discussion with the Document Editor
>with resolution of the issues described above as a goal.
The Chair should do (indeed should have done) lots on things. But the
so long as the Chair remains silent there is little to be done except to
press on as best we can.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5