Re: #1028 USEFOR 3.1.2 Date: Resolved, I think.

[Bruce Lilly <blilly@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu June 30 2005 12:02, Frank Ellermann wrote:

> Sigh.  That's the point of this thread.  It's a general design
> principle of USEFOR to replace 2822 "MUST accept obs-ceneties"
> by a "MAY accept" keeping the 2822 "MUST NOT generate".
> 
> So when Bruce wrote...
> 
> | that text is redundant and unnecessarily specific to "GMT"
> 
> ...it's only his POV because he disregards the general design
> principle.  Of course it's necessary to say "MUST accept GMT"
> if the general rule is only a "MAY accept".

No, such text and any purported "design principle" were replaced
by the specific text in Harald's proposal, which replaced the specific
text in Ken's proposal, proposed to replace the specific text in
the current draft.

> If Bruce doesn't like "unknown" s/unknown/other/ is perfectly
> clear,

I disagree. If the intent is to contradict 2822, which is a
normative reference, then it's necessary to state so unambiguously,
especially where is affects a 2822 field such as Date.  I don't
believe such a contradiction can fly (see below).

> That's in Bruce's obs-package, we're cherry picking

Speak for yourself.  I want no cherry-picking.

IMAP is the Internet Message Access Protocol, which is used to
access mail and news and other messages.  There is a protocol
extension draft, mentioned in this WG several times, which provides
a mechanism for a client (UA) to request the server to collate
message order by factors including the Date field.  The client
and server deal with messages; there is no artificial distinction
between "news" and "mail" and "other".  IMAP is a Standards Track
protocol compliant with RFCs 822, 850, 1036, and 2822, among
others.  Given such a request, how do you propose that such a
server should treat a message in a folder containing the field
  Date: 30 Mar 2001 12:34:56 EST
Three-part question: do you believe that should be treated as
having 822/2822 semantics (equivalent to -0500) or as -0000,
why, and do you believe that you can convince IMAP implementers?

2003-06-30:c