Subject: Re: 821bis, draft proto-09

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1998 22:17:57 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

On Thu, 03 Dec 1998 10:08:17 -0800 Paul Hoffman / IMC 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I find it quite distressing that Dan was the only person to have noticed
> that the new draft was missing a large hunk of text from the middle (I have
> verified that my copy was also missing the text). It indicates that folks
> here are not reading the new drafts as they come out.

Actually, Dan wasn't.  A couple of other people caught it and
sent notes to me.   Stupid editing error.

> John: please consider sending out another (complete) copy, or posting a
> copy to a Web site somewhere where those of us who want to download the
> whole thing can do so.

I was going to just post the relevant section, but will repost the
whole thing (with the corrected text that John Beck caught missing as
well), later tonight if I can stay awake long enough.  Bad week, and
I'm sorry.

    john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 06:36:48 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

On Wed, 02 Dec 1998 02:16:01 +0000 "D. J. Bernstein" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> The editor has also created a new problem: any message ``which is not
> required by a standards-track RFC to have a null-reverse path'' now
> ``SHOULD be sent with with a valid, non-null reverse path.'' I wish the
> editor would stop screwing around with areas beyond his experience.

See X.1.9(xiv).   Mailing list discussion appeared that there
was a problem here, the editor suggests a possible fix.  If the
WG either concludes that there was no problem, or that a
different fix is preferred, the change can be easily undone or
replaced by another.  

This is why we have drafts, and why X.1 explicitly calls out
substantive changes made.

Others will, no doubt, draw their own conclusions about relative
experience in this area.

    john