Re: Potential ISSUE: <utext> (was: ABNF nits)

["Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <g8qiku$h8j$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> "Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>Whatever the WG decided in 2007, the 2822upd modifications
>wrt <utext> and NO-WS-CTL are new (2008) events, based on
>feedback from Charles, you, and me (among others) on the
>rfc822 list.

Yes, we managed to get more changed in RFC 2822-bis than we could ever
have expected.

>Nobody here could foresee that there will be no <utext> in
>2822upd before the author pulled it.  Technically this is
>no problem, because you reference 2822, not 2822upd.  But
>my confidence that readers can figure this detail out is
>limited.  I changed the subject to attract the attention
>of Harald and Alexey. 

I still think that, now 2822bis has been accepted by the IETF and will
presumably become a Draft Standard, we should revisit USEFOR and rebase it
on 2822-bis (firmly resiting all temptations to make any technical
changes). It should be quite straightforward, and if Ken is not
able/willing to do it, then I will volunteer. Ken?

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5