RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay

Noah et al:

In a part of your proposal, you wrote:

<snip>

> Another possibility that has been raised would be to change the
> default behavior to be: "leave in place any header entries that are
> not processed".  

I wonder what the opposition is to this solution. It seems to be the simplest. 
Could you, or someone else, provide some rationale on why this might not fit the bill?

> Optionally, we could additionally define a
> relayIfProcessed override if the group felt it to be worth the
> trouble.  My impression is that some who have considered changing the
> default rules like the idea, but some feel that it doesn't meet a need
> to have headers that do indeed disappear when unprocessed.

What was the rationale for unprocessed headers (targeted at "next") to disappear?
  
> For the
> record, I quite like the idea, but (a) am not ready to take 
> the lead in
> pushing it in the face of any significant opposition and (b) would not
> want to go back to last call if this were deemed a serious change--
> I'm not sure it is.

Is there indeed significant opposition to it?
I can't see how changing the default handling for non-MU headers targeted
at next can be seen as a go-back-to-last-call issue.

Thanks
Nilo




> 
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>