From: John Moreno (phenix@interpath.com)
Date: Wed Oct 20 1999 - 13:15:03 CDT
Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
> phenix@interpath.com (John Moreno) writes:
>
> Do I interpret that as a mild preference for #1?
Yeah.
-snip-
> I am not convinced that Reference counts over 21 are necessarily
> non-compliant.
You're right.
> How about:
>
> However, it would be wrong to assume that References headers containing
> more than 21 message identifiers will not occur.
In general that sounds OK, but on looking at it all together, I'd like to
see the whole section made a bit less verbose....
Followup agents SHOULD NOT trim message identifiers out of a
References header unless the number of message identifiers exceeds
21, at which time trimming SHOULD be done by removing sufficient
identifiers, starting with the second, so as to bring the total down
to 21.
NOTE: It would be wrong to assume that References headers
containing more than 21 message identifiers will not occur.
is more to the point and says the same thing as:
Followup agents SHOULD NOT trim message identifiers out of a
References header unless the number of message identifiers exceeds
21, in which case message identifiers SHOULD be trimmed until there
are only 21.
Trimming SHOULD be done by removing sufficient identifiers starting
with the second so as to bring the total down to 21. However, it would
be wrong to assume that References headers containing more than 21
message identifiers will not occur.
(and is there any reason why we can't use msg-id's in place of "message
identifiers" and/or "identifiers"?)
-- John Moreno