Re: Transformation of Non-ASCII headers

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

From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Feb 12 2003 - 13:26:38 CST


In <3E482A1E.3050303@Sonietta.blilly.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:

>Charles Lindsey wrote:

>> I have quoted you three examples from IETF Standars-track documents that
>> use the term "backwards compatibility" as I have defined it. And yet you
>> claim that is not what it means to the IETF, and quote Dave Crocker in
>> support of your view.

>No, you have not quoted examples, you have listed RFC numbers. You are
>wrong about RFC 2156; here's a quote:

>" There are three places where an order is specified:

> 1. The text encoding (std-or-address) of MTS.ORAddress as used
> in the local-part of an RFC 822 address. An order is needed
> for those components which may have multiple values
> (Organizational Unit, and Domain Defined Attributes). When
> generating an 822.std-or-address, components of a given type
> shall be in hierarchical order with the most significant
> component on the RHS (right hand side or domain part). If
> there is an Organization Attribute, it shall be to the right
> of any Organizational Unit attributes. These requirements
> are for the following reasons:

> - Alignment to the hierarchy of other components in RFC
> 822 addresses (thus, Organizational Units will appear
> in the same order, whether encoded on the RHS or LHS).

> - Backwards compatibility with RFC 987/1026.

And here's another quote:

4.7.3.6. RFC 987 backwards compatibility

   The mapping defined here is different to that used in RFC 987, as the
   RFC 987 mapping lead to changed message IDs in many cases. Fixing
   the problems is preferable to retaining backwards compatibility. An
   implementation of this standard may recognise message IDs generated
   by RFC 987. This is not recommended.

Which is also an example of where "backwards compatibility" (in my sense
of the term) was deliberately violated. Did someone say that the IETF
never did that (not that Usefor is trying to)?

-- 
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


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


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29.