John C Klensin wrote:
[substantive]
If someone wants something else, it is probably time to dust
off and finish some flavor of per-recipient post-DATA reply
model and see if it gets any traction.
It's not that I want "something else", but getting some kind
of "selective reject" on standards track could be good. That
could also contain any desired "retry clarification", as far
as this "clarification" does not try to redefine RFC 2821bis.
[procedural]
if you expect me to do it quietly during AUTH48,... well,
there is no chance.
IFF Hector - nobody else is in his position - could propose
less than ten words ASAP that would settle this issue from
his POV, and confirm what most others (SM, Glen, Ned, etc.)
here said, *and* IFF these folks agree with his proposal,
then I'd hope you can still add this - openly, not quietly.
For obvious reasons I'd like to get 2821bis in a state where
it can be promoted to STD in 2009 "as is", without new draft:
The chances might be slim, but if nobody finds fresh errata,
2821bis could officially replace RFC 821 in STD 10 next year.
Frank