[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: #1029: USEFOR 3.2.2 References: Should comments be a MUST NOT? (fwd)

To: ietf-usefor@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: #1029: USEFOR 3.2.2 References: Should comments be a MUST NOT? (fwd)
From: Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 10:36:55 -0700
In-reply-to: <> (Harald Tveit Alvestrand's message of "Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:24:24 +0200")
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-usefor.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Organization: The Eyrie
References: <>
Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) XEmacs/21.4 (Jumbo Shrimp, linux)

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> If nobody wants to say anything about this, I'm going to close it with a
> "no change needed". I can't accept a change based on a single voice and
> no raised objection.

I don't think the interoperability problem caused by comments in
References is sufficient to really justify a MUST NOT.  I think comments
in References is very silly, but it's not our silliness, it's RFC 2822.
As a mail to news gateway author, I'd rather push news towards being able
to cope with RFC 2822 silliness rather than being forced to do more and
more fixups at the conversion step.

So I'm happy with the existing text.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

References:
- #1029: USEFOR 3.2.2 References: Should comments be a MUST NOT? (fwd)
  - From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand

Prev by Date: Re: #1022 USEFOR 2.1 obs-phrase: Resolution proposal
Next by Date: Re: #1042 USEFOR 3.1.5 Newsgroups folding - resolution proposal
Previous by thread: #1029: USEFOR 3.2.2 References: Should comments be a MUST NOT? (fwd)
Next by thread: #1042 USEFOR 3.1.5 Newsgroups folding - resolution proposal
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread