On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 15:59:27 +0200
Simon Josefsson <simon+ietf-822(_at_)josefsson(_dot_)org> wrote:
Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:
RFC 2822 doesn't obsolete RFC 822 standards wise though, since RFC
2822 is merely a Proposed Standard.
As for things lacking in RFC 2822; I wish the X-* headers could be
discussed, at least to explicitly acknowledge that they are no longer
the recommended solution to introduce new headers.
they never were the recommended solution to introduce new header fields.
OK, replace "new header fields" with "user defined header fields"
then. To me, they both result in the same thing, as any new header
field at some point in time would have been a user defined header
field during experiments, but perhaps you see a difference.
New fields don't have to be used in experiments before being defined.
To turn this discussion into something potentially useful; do you
think a 2822bis (822tres?) should discuss X-* or not? If so, what do
you think it should say?
If 2822 is revised I think it should only contain minor clarifications
of the existing material. The effort to revise 2822 should avoid
opening up new cans of worms.