Re: Recommendations for Automatic Responses to Electronic Mail - <draft-moore-auto-email-response-04.txt>

[Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>]

At 7:08 AM -0700 2003/10/15, ned.freed@mrochek.com wrote:

>  I mention this less not because of any impact on the review of
>  Keith's document, but rather because you might want to be aware
>  of the possibility that other BCP documents you're considering
>  that define protocol elements may end up not being BCPs at all.

	Very good point.  Perhaps what we call the BCP subgroup today 
should instead be re-named the "RFC" or "documents" subgroup, in that 
we deal with BCPs as well as other types of published documents 
(RFCs).

	Thoughts?

--
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be>

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.

GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+
!w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++)
tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)