I expect that we might want to change that to be RFC822bisASCII, when we
know what the new RFC number is. Question: Do we or do we not want to
cite a 1968 obsolete SI X3.4 standard in a 1991 RFC?
If one wants to cite the old one, and be perfectly precise, and expect
that RFC-XXXX is going to supplement 822 and not replace it, then the
easiest thing to do is to cite
"ASCII as defined in RFC822, reference [n]" and be done with it.
The second question is more interesting, but I've got nothing else to
contribute to it.
Stef, before serious confusion sets in, I'd suggest dropping the
"RFC822bis" terminology and using either Nathaniel's RFC-XXXX or
something else. The reason is that there is *already* something that
might be construed as RFC822bis and is an Internet Standard: RFC822 read
through the filters and interpretations of RFC1123. Moreover, I infer
from Dave's comments/questions of a week ago about weak places in 822
itself that he is contemplating a revision and tuning of 822 that,
presumably, would supercede it, thereby creating, perhaps, 822bis-bis.
Finally, in deference to those who are throughly sick of this
discussion, and to Dave's earlier comment (which I construed as "let's
make sure we agree on the conceptual problems, then quibble"), let's
take the off the list. I, for one, would like to read what Nathaniel
comes up with in RFC form and then comment/quibble, possibly offline
relative to the list. In the interim, I'd categorize myself as part of
the "throughly sick of this discussion" group.
--john
-------