Re: X-* header fields (Was: Getting 2822 to Draft)

["Adam M. Costello" <ietf-822.amc+0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In 2822bis, I think it would be fine to clarify that and say
> "User-defined header fields (those starting with 'X-') no longer
> specifically discussed",

I think that might be a little too terse.  I think it could be a lot
clearer with slightly more explanation:

    There is no longer a distinction made between User-defined header
    fields (which start with "X-") and Extension header fields (which
    don't).  Both are now treated uniformly as Optional header fields.

AMC