From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Wed May 08 2002 - 07:52:27 CDT
In <87offsnlbp.fsf@erlenstar.demon.co.uk> Andrew Gierth <andrew@erlenstar.demon.co.uk> writes:
>If published as an RFC, it would be one of the largest 40 RFCs. It's
>about two and a half times the size of RFC2822, and comparable in size
>to all five of the core MIME RFCs put together.
But if split into two or more RFCs, the total number of pages would
actually increase.
>At the very least the archaeological formats should be deleted; these
>are documented in other RFCs, which won't magically disappear if this
>draft gets published.
Are you offering to withdraw your objection if those archaeological
formats are deleted?
> Charles> But these are all directed to making a cleaner system, with
> Charles> better compatibility with Email, in the long term.
>Compatibility with email does not require changes to the syntax of
>headers never used in email (such as Path or Newsgroups).
No, but it does make sense that whatever folding rules we have should
apply evenly across all headers. And Newsgroups does appear in email quite
often, as it happens.
> Charles> They are all SHOULD NOT generate.
>untrue - the draft even goes so far as to use "SHOULD" for folding the
>Path header
An agent that does not accepted folded Path is already in breach of RFC
1036. But the evidence is that folded paths propagate perfectly well. The
only problem is that some agents unfold them before passing them on, which
is naughty, but does not cause irreparable harm.
>a preliminary scan through the text identifies the following
>questionable uses of SHOULD or MUST:
OK, these can be discussed. I have started a separate thread to do so.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5