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

[Tony Hansen <tony@xxxxxxx>]

>From what I understand, the definitions of id-left and id-right that
msg-id-core refers to are slightly different between usefor and 5322
(nee 2822upd). In short, msg-id-kernel would be 5322's "equivalent to
usefor's msg-id-core".

The argument espoused is that adding msg-id-kernel allows that internal
portion of the msg-id to be used by people in other documents; as 5322
stands, that's not possible. It might be that it will be widely used.
And it might be that no one will do so, eschewing msg-id-kernel for
usefor's msg-id-core. In the latter case: nothing lost, nothing gained.

We can explore further compatibility issues when we look at 2822ter/5322bis.

	Tony Hansen
	tony@xxxxxxx

Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 9/9/08 at 8:20 PM -0700, ned+ietf-822@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
>> Dave Crocker wrote:
>>> Tony Hansen wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Not that you asked for additional input, but to offer a personal
>>> comment on the linguistic choices:  While "internal" is structurally
>>> correct, it doesn't say much about completeness or utility.  And
>>> "element" actually implies incompleteness.
>>>
>>> Of the 3 choices, "kernel" nicely implies completeness and utility.
>>
>> FWIW, I like "kernel" as well. I also have no problem with this change
>> being made.
> 
> So, after Charles's message, I'm no longer clear why the original
> (msg-id-core), which already appears in the usefor document, shouldn't
> be used. Mind you, I'm myself not entirely clear why we want to do this
> at all, but I've got no particular objection to it.
> 
> pr