Re: Getting 2822 to Draft

[Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> >> 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.  

IIRC it was driven by the inability to get agreement on the topic within
the DRUMS WG.

2822 bis will not obsolete 822 in any event - 822 is still a full
Standard, while 2822 bis would only be Draft Standard.  As a practical
matter, nothing can really obsolete 822 as long as people still need to
read old mail messages.