On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Mark Crispin wrote:
I observe that wherever message-ids are used, they are inside a <> bracket
pair. It is possible to define this as a quoting rule which would allow
embedded spaces.
RFCs 822, 2822, and 1036 (and all informal successors of 1036) all say
that the <> are *part* of the message ID.
Either way, this doesn't belong in the header format specification. It
belongs in the NNTP specification, and a "best common practices" type
document.
This contention utterly baffles me. Please explain. This is a major
interoperability issue for news: it could cause articles generated on one
system to be unprocessable on another, or impossible to transmit over some
transmission paths. Most certainly it belongs in the news format spec.
If it does not belong in "the header format specification", then said
specification is not sufficient, by itself, as a news format standard.
The length limitation of 250
I don't particularly worry about this, although as a practical header
format limitation it belongs an a "best common practices" type document
rather than the header format document itself.
Sorry, this is flatly proposterous. Again, it's a major interoperability
matter, not just a "good practice" issue: news systems will very probably
be unable to exchange news successfully if it is violated.
The contention that "news and mail are the same" starts to sound odd when
major interoperability issues for news are casually brushed off as being
of no importance and not meriting mention in a standard, but detailed
foibles of mail like the 7-bit restriction are expected to be considered
sacrosanct. One gets the distinct impression that "news and mail are the
same" is being used to mean "so news's problems are of no importance".
The fact that something is in a BCP doesn't mean that it can be ignored.
BCPs can, and do, contain statements of the form "such-and-such will not
work, so don't do it."
By analogy, it would seem a fine idea to move mail's 7-bit restriction
into a BCP. Do you agree? If not, why not? Surely such an antiquated
and mail-specific limitation doesn't belong in "the header format
specification".
What, exactly, is the distinction between standards-track documents and
BCPs, if vital interoperability issues are not suitable for the former?
Henry Spencer
henry(_at_)spsystems(_dot_)net