Re: Getting 2822 to Draft

[Simon Josefsson <jas@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>> Would 2822bis obsolete 822 fully?  If so, I believe it should mention
>> what happened to the X- header prefix that was part of 822.  I don't
>> believe simply removing them without stating why is a good idea,
>> people can draw many different conclusions from that, which affect
>> real implementations.
>
> some people think X- headers are extremely useful, others think they
> were a bad mistake that should be eradicated.  maybe we need a
> separate RFC about X- fields.  I'd hate to see this argument block
> progression of 2822 bis.

Ignoring the problem won't make it go away, though.  Consciously
removing text is driven by some motivation.  Why not state that
motivation in the document?  Furthermore, if 2822bis fully obsolete
822, without mentioning X- headers, then the X- headers have been
effectively obsoleted.  I don't see how acknowledging that implicit
decision by stating it makes matters worse.

Thanks,
Simon