From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Wed Apr 14 2004 - 20:38:02 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <406CD07A.4050702@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>
>
>>This draft, as a product of this WG, has no jurisdiction over the
>>definition of fields defined in RFCs 822 and/or 2822.
>
>
> We have already determined that is not so, and that subject is closed
> until such time as the members of this WG ask me to reopen it.
No, "We" have made no such determination. *You* are not in a position
to declare the matter closed, and such attempted bullying will not be
tolerated. The subject remains open for discussion until such time as
consensus is reached (as either agreed to by all participants or declared
so by the Chair), or until the Chair declares the matter closed. *you*
are not the WG Chair.
> I hear no such requests.
Well, "King" Charles, your lowly subjects need not petition you for
your indulgence to discuss relevant matters in this WG. So piss off.
> There were syntactic differences for some headers in RFC
> 1036, and there are syntactic differences in our draft.
RFC 1036 specified that valid articles were also valid messages per RFC
822, and further specified that in the event of conflicts, RFC 822 had
clear precedence. RFC 1036 did not specifically attempt to redefine a
structured field specifically defined as such by RFC 822 as a structured
field. And this draft lacks the clear description of the reasons for
using the message format for articles which RFC 1036 section 2 provides
(and which was also part of RFC 850).
> And some of those
> same syntactic differences are also present in the new NNTP draft which is
> currently the subject of IETF Last Call.
I see no imposition of structure on the unstructured Subject field by
any of the NNTP extension drafts currently available. If you wish to
claim that there is such an imposition, please provide an adequate reference.