#1053 Relationship to RFC 2822 - suggestion

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

We've been around the bush of relationship to RFC 2822 a number of times.
This impacts #1052 (changes from RFC 2822), #1084 (Names for ABN 
forpductios redefining 2822 constructs).
Some clarification may be needed - I THINK we have a mostly-shared opinion, 
but we might benefit from being more explicit.

Current text from 2.1:

2.1  Base

  News articles MUST conform to the syntax specified in Section 3 of
  [RFC2822].  Netnews agents MAY also accept the obsolete syntax
  specified in Section 4 of [RFC2822], but they MUST NOT generate
  productions of such syntax.

  Agents MUST accept the obs-phrase construct (use of a phrase like
  "John Q. Public" without the use of quotes, see [RFC2822] section
  4.1) but they MUST NOT generate productions of such syntax.

Suggested, expanded text:

2.1  Base

  An article is said to be conformant to this specification if it
  conforms to the format specified in RFC 2822 section 3 and to the
  additional requirements of this specification.

  An article that uses the obsolete syntax specified in section 4 of
  [RFC2822], except for the two exceptions mentioned below, is NOT
  conformant to this specification.

  This document, and specifications that build upon it, specifies how
  to handle conformant articles. Handling of non-conformant articles
  is outside the scope of this specification; agents may choose
  to accept such articles, reject such articles or modify such articles.

  Agents conforming to this specification MUST generate only conformant
  articles.

  Articles are conformant if they use the obs-phrase construct
  (use of a phrase like "John Q. Public" without the use of quotes,
  see [RFC2822] section 4.1) but they MUST NOT generate productions
  of such syntax.

  Articles are conformant if they use the "GMT" timezone, as specified
  in section 3.1.2.

  The text below uses ABNF to specify restrictions on the syntax
  specified in [RFC2822]; this grammar is intended to be more restrictive
  than the RFC 2822 grammar.
  Articles must conform to both the ABNF specified in RFC 2822 and to the
  ABNF specified here, as applicable.


Does this make sense?