Re: Draft due in 6 weeks for IETF meeting.

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)
Date: Mon Sep 20 1999 - 10:18:13 CDT


Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes:

>> 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.

Agreed.

>> 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.

SHOULD sounds fine to me.

>> 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.

Yes. Time for it to die. Our standard should disallow it as a way of
indicating a control message *and* disallow it in standard Subject lines;
then the next standard has some hope of being able to allow it in Subject
lines again.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)         <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29.