Re: Fw: requested tweak to 2822upd grammar - consensus call

[Tony Hansen <tony@xxxxxxx>]

Thank you everyone for posting your opinions on this matter. I'm going
to categorize them this way:

  1) fine with idea if there's no impact on rfc editor	
	Alexey Melnikov (proponent of the idea)
	Dave Crocker
	Abhijt Menon-Sen
	Lisa Dusseault

  2) fine with idea
	Arnt Gulbrandson
	Jeff Macdonald

  3) would affect other RFCs with current name
	Frank Ellermann
	SM

  4) not sure people really want this, given the way the obs stuff is
     pulled in by id-left and id-right
	Frank Ellermann

  5) fine with the idea if there're no negative impacts and consensus is
     behind it
	Pete Resnick

Given the above, I'd say that the idea has consensus behind it, but not
with the current suggested name. I'd say it's worth changing the name to
something that doesn't cause conflicts, and let people try using it. It
may be they won't be able to use it for the reasons Frank mentions, but
it doesn't hurt to let them try.

Doing a few searches show that some names that don't cause conflicts are
msg-id-internal, msg-id-kernel and msg-id-element. I think the choice
should be between Pete and Lisa.

When we get around to going for Full Standard, we can look at whether
people are actually using msg-id-whatever, as well as how msg-id-core is
used in the other RFCs and msg-id in general.

	Tony Hansen

Tony Hansen wrote:
> I'm passing this message on to the 822 list for vetting.
> 
> Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>> I realize that this might be too late now, but I've suggested this
>> before and got no response. And I hope this is not controversial for
>> AUTH48:
>>
>> Can we please redefine the msg-id in section 3.6.4:
>>
>> msg-id          =   [CFWS] "<" id-left "@" id-right ">" [CFWS]
>>
>> to be:
>>
>> msg-id          =   [CFWS] "<" msg-id-core ">" [CFWS]
>> msg-id-core     =   id-left "@" id-right
>>
>> This way other documents can reference the thing inside <> more
>> easily.
> 
> This change is strictly an arrangement of the ABNF and does not affect
> either the intent of the document nor what's on the wire.
> 
> I've been asked to ask the list for buy in on this suggestion.
> 
> Without a definite consensus to do so, it will not be done. The RFC
> Editor hasn't yet made it down to our document in their queue, so this
> request is not blocking anything. Lisa has indicated a willingness to
> support the change as an RFC Editor note, if there is consensus to do
> so. But it *is* an extremely late request.
> 
> Please respond to the mailing list before Monday September 8th with a +1
> (for the change) or -1 (against the change).
> 
> 	Tony Hansen
> 	tony@xxxxxxx
>