From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Aug 25 2004 - 08:10:07 CDT
In <412B5916.6050805@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>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.
That particular MUST has been in our draft for the past 5 years, at least,
and everyone has accepted it (and you have not complained about it before
now). As I pointed out yesterday, it is merely a little stronger than the
SHOULD at the corresponding place in RFC 2822.
-- 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@clerew.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