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

[Frank Ellermann <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:

>> === NEW ===
>>    o  Message identifiers MUST be separated with CFWS, typically a
>>       space or FWS.
>>
>>    references      =  "References:" SP msg-id-list CRLF
>>    msg-id-list     =  [CFWS] *( msg-id CFWS ) msg-id [CFWS] CRLF
>> === END ===

>> Your point 5 going to USEPRO, is that okay ?

> USEFOR can CFWS in ABNF without limit, but in USEPRO have
> this idea....
>      Comments in CFWS between message identifiers can cause
>      interoperability problems, so comments SHOULD NOT be
>      generated, but MUST be accepted, and MAY be removed.

> I know, "MUST accept+MAY remove" is probably unheard of,

No, it's almost like RFC 2821 about source-routes "MUST accept,
SHOULD ignore, MAY respect".

> this is probably a weird idea, but please find a real reason
> to dismiss it

I've no reason to dismiss it, we already discussed "MAY remove"
in conjunction with trimming.  Charles started a quest for the
"semantical content" (= no comments, but then we stumbled over
the problem with backslashes within <no-fold-2822-crap>).  And
somebody else also wanted to strip the comments in an attempt
to stay within our obscure unfolded length limit 998.

Strip comments and reinject, that could be evil, I've no idea
how stuff like a signed header works.  But you didn't propose
to strip and reinject, so that point is probably moot.  Bye