From: Maurizio Codogno (mau@beatles.cselt.it)
Date: Mon Sep 20 1999 - 07:07:02 CDT
" >Issues within those sections:
"
" >References. There was a little discussion, and I think we should now
" >reduce the number kept to first plus last 20, and to remove the
" >suggestion that implementations need to look at the body. There remains
" >the question of whether trimming the Referemces (when you do a followup)
" >should be a SHOULD or a MAY. Currently it says SHOULD, but I would be
" >happier with MAY.
MAY.
" >More importantly, do you want me to say that "Subject: cmsg blah" is for
" >information only and MUST NOT be used to instigate control action on its
" >own.
yessir.
" >Distribution. Are you happy with the allowed characters in
" >distribution-name? And should we allow CFWS?
Nowadays, Distribution: is completely useless. Were it for me, I'd delete
it, since it won't be used anyway. If we decide we need the
functionality, we should choose another name and start it over.
As for CFWS, personally I don't see any utility, but I may be wrong.
" >Approved. There is mention of strengthening this. Should this wait until
" >we have dealt with authentication matters?
Please, let's not try to strengthen it now. IESG will complain a lot
because of security items, so if we change the syntax we should end up
with a sound specification, and this will block the whole process.
I would like to have a separate draft dealing with it.
ciao ,.mau.