From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Mon Mar 15 2004 - 21:14:07 CST
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <4054E538.3010903@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>>But then you'd still be wrong, because
>>the quoted text is in fact from RFC 2822, section 3.6.5. RFC 2822 is the
>>"Internet Message Format" used not only by email, but by fax, voice
>>messaging, EDI, SIP, and news; it is the primary reference for message
>>format in the Usefor draft.
>
>
>>From the Abstract to RFC 2822:
>
> This standard specifies a syntax for text messages that are sent
> between computer users, within the framework of "electronic mail"
> messages.
Whoopee! You've managed to quote something that has been copied verbatim
since RFC 733, which predates Usenet. Most of RFC 2822 in fact refers to
"messages" (of course there are some mail-specific parts, such as references
to RFC 2821 (SMTP)).
> (and repeated in Section 1.1 entitled "Scope").
>
> Kindly point me to standards for fax, voice messaging, EDI and SIP which
> adopt RFC 2822 without qualification.
Many predate 2822, therefore use the earlier Internet Message format, RFC 822.
For example, RFCs 2421 and 2423 for voice messages, RFC 2542 for fax (N.B.
that also refers to RFC 2298 which is for MDNs, which also refers to the
822 message format), RFC 3335 for EDI, RFC 3297 refers to fax and voice
messages, and RFC 3261 and others for SIP.
> As to news, the relationship with RFC 2822 will be whatever we say it is.
As Standards Track documents, the first two will have to pass IESG muster,
and that means they will have to be compatible with existing widely-
deployed protocols (e.g. IMAP), and that in turn means that the header
fields shared with email will have to have compatible syntax and semantics.
Before a Usefor draft goes before the IESG, the header field registry
will be a reality and those common fields will already be registered with
RFC 2822 (or its successor) as the defining documents. So even if you have
delusions about being able to ignore IMAP compatibility, you can forget
about trying to redefine Subject because of the header field registry.