Pete, >>RB> Restricting the disucssion to local-parts runs the risk of excluding >>RB> other potentially relevent issues. PR> I agree. Limiting discussion at this point to local-part does not PR> take into account some of the possibilities. That was exactly the intent of the text. We have already seen how nicely the text served to bring into pretty stark relief one bit of expectation from one of the proposals. It is only fitting to have it serve the same purpose for another one. IETF BOF time is pretty lousy for an open-ended chat. Having specifications to chat about is only marginally better than not having them. What makes the real difference is having serious focus to the meeting. If we go into this meeting without even having a clear sense of the scope of the problem to be tackled, then the chance of having a productive meeting is pretty small. At the moment, it appears that the focus of the meeting is likely to be: Shall we break existing Internet mail or shall we lay an enhancement on top of it that preserves the installed base. (I'm sure that everyone else who was present at the pre-MIME/ESMTP discussions is really looking forward to repeating the experience.) d/ -- Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com> Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com> Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>