Re: [Asrg] Filtering Header Draft Discussion

On Oct 16 2004, Philip Miller wrote:
> William Leibzon wrote:
> > [snip my text]
> > Can I request that "Processed:" header name be changed to something else?
> 
> Sure. We (being me, Laird, and the others who've contributed) never really came to a 
> consensus as to the appropriate name for this header. 'Filtered' was one suggestion, but 
> that has a slight semantic issue that nothing being passed along with the header was 
> 'filtered out'. 'Processed' just seemed to be the most generic we could think of at the 
> time, so it's used mostly as a place holder. Suggestions are welcome.

Sorry I'm late to the discussion. I don't care what the name of the
header is, but it's probably best if whoever cleans up the document
next makes an executive decision for now. It's easy to global replace
later if necessary. If "Processed" is taken, we could go with
"Filtered".

> 
> > [snip]
> > As far as everything else I'll comment on it when I had time to fully
> > read the draft, but I think there would be quite a few comments ...
> 
> Thank you. Since it's too late to prepare this for I-D submission for IETF 61, there is a 
> fair amount of time to work on it. I figure it'll probably go into the real I-D queue as 
> soon as it reopens, as I'm looking for more outside attention.

There hasn't been too much activity on the list recently, which is
really the root problem. Unless the draft is discussed and heavily
criticised by people who will be affected, it won't progress to
something truly useful.

Can you or David do a quick editing cut of the current draft into
something that is readable for the list? I added a bunch of text but
never got around to cleaning up the text as a whole, and there's a bit
of duplication still. I'm willing to do a quick edit myself if you
both prefer. The important thing is to be readable, not necessarily
complete, so that it fosters discussion on the list. Be ruthless.

I'll also post a general message to the ietf-822 list to see what
people there think and possible caveats. We really need third party input.

-- 
Laird Breyer.