Interaction between redirect and editheader

Philip Guenther wrote:

> > e.g. as applied to the 'editheader' mandate that
> >    if an error terminates processing of the script, the original
> >    message header MUST be used when doing the implicit keep required by
> >    [SIEVE] section 2.10.6.
> > where I think it could be argued that such an added "Received" line
> > would be valuable to preserve.
> In the context of 'editheader', I think it's clear that "the original 
> message" just means "the message as it was before any addheader or 
> deleteheader actions were processed".  If you disagree about that 
> being clear, well, suggest text for editheader...
I would just remind people that WGLC for editheader has ended as well. 
Cyrus and I are planning to request its publication next week.
So at this point we need specific text.

> but that doesn't affect this discussion of 3028bis.
>
> > The new language that "Received headers MUST be preserved" also implies
> > that the removal of any Received headers via an extension (e.g.
> > 'editheader') must be ignored for the redirect.  Is that the intent?
I don't think this was the intent.

> >  I dunno whether I think that's good -- I probably do, but it certainly
> > means more special-case work for me :)
> An excellent question, but again, one that should be raised against 
> editheader and not 3028bis.
> (I'm not sure either what the Right Thing is.  I'll note that 
> editheader could override 3028bis, just as body overrides variables.
Indeed. It is somewhat difficult to put normative requirements on future 
document (or in this case on a document that gets published later).
> The key procedural requirement, I think, would be the inclusion of 
> "Updates: 3028bis" on the title page of editheader.
Yes, go for it! :-)

> )