From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Thu Apr 01 2004 - 20:31:22 CST
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <4065F935.4010807@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>
>
>>>>I note that you have failed to provide even a single example of
>>>>significant syntax or semantic redefinition of any RFC 2822 or 822 field
>>>>by any of the fax, voice messaging, EDI, or mail RFCs. Or by IMAP.
>>>
>>>
>>>RFC 1036 itself makes significant syntax redefinitions.
>
>
>>RFC 1036 has no jurisdiction over fax, voice messaging, EDI, or mail.
>
>
> Who said it had?
Nobody. But what was asked for (several times) was for you to back up
your claims by providing an example of redefinition of any RFC 822/2822-
defined field by any of the fax, voice messaging, EDI, mail or IMAP RFCs.
And you sidestepped that request with a non-sequitur. As you have done
yet again above.
>>And RFC 1036 explicitly cedes jurisdiction to RFC 822 in areas of
>>conflict with that Standard.
>
>
> RFC 1036 tied itself in a knot by saying different things in different
> places. It matters not, because in practice the world has consistently
> followed the syntax given in RFC 1036, and that famous disclaimer is dead
> in the water. That is the situation we are in today, and that is the mess
> that this draft is trying to clear up.
This draft, as a product of this WG, has no jurisdiction over the
definition of fields defined in RFCs 822 and/or 2822. Those fields
come under the jurisdiction of a different WG. That is the situation
which also applied at the time of RFCs 850 and 1036, and is the reason
for the statement of priority given to RFC 822 which appears in both
850 and 1036. The only way we can clear up the situation is by removing
the discrepancies with 822/2822; we cannot redefine the 822/2822 fields
any more than we can redefine MIME fields.
> Naturally, the various other media you refer to do not redefine the syntax
> of semantics of RFC 2822 because they are all describing services to be
> carried _on_top_of_ mail.
Your interpretation is incorrect. as has been explained to you on prior
occasions. The *applications* (not "media") are not "carried _on_top_of_
mail" (email is another application); all of the referenced applications
as well as Usenet news (another application) use the common Internet
Message Format defined in RFC 2822 and its predecessors.