From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Tue Aug 24 2004 - 10:04:54 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> Anyway, there are my proposed texts for the two methods of
> implementing this change. If we are agreed that those texts are
> satisfactory, then we can proceed to make a choice between them.
No RFC 2119 "MUST" or "MUST NOT" in conjunction with the References field
is acceptable, since there are no interoperability issues (RFC 2119 sect. 6).
The current text in draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-00.txt is satisfactory as it
stands w.r.t. References and In-Reply-To.