Re: Getting 2822 to Draft

["Al Costanzo" <al@xxxxxxx>]

If they are not part of this document it cannot replace/obsolete 822.

Al Costanzo
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pete Resnick" <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Keith Moore" <moore@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Simon Josefsson" <jas@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <moore@xxxxxxxxxx>;
<ietf-822@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: Getting 2822 to Draft


>
> On 1/2/04 at 11:14 AM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> >>>On 1/2/04 at 1:34 PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Would 2822bis obsolete 822 fully?
> >
> >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.
>
> Uh, no. If we can get 2822bis to full Standard (which is the desired
> intent), it should obsolete 822 in that it should contain all of the
> grammar to read old messages. That was the intent of section 4 of
> 2822.
>
> >>>>If so, I believe it should mention what happened to the X- header
> >>>>prefix that was part of 822.
>
> I don't think anyone would have a problem with a small note in the
> "Changes to previous standards" section which says, "Some people
> think X-* fields are bad, some think they are good, they were removed
> from this document." For a fuller discussion, I think Keith is right
> that we might consider a separate informational document.
>
> pr
> -- 
> Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
> QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
>