ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Regarding SMTP Message specification syntax ...

2003-10-01 07:37:47

Keith Moore writes:
If 2822 is revised I think it should only contain minor
clarifications of the existing material.

2822 should be revised, bcause that's the only way to formally
obsolete 822.

not so.  2822 can be advanced in grade without revising it.  I think it
would also be reasonable to publish a separate list of errata and declare
2822 + that list to be a draft standard, though I don't know whether IESG
would go along with that.

I agree that 2822 is good and that only very minor changes should be
done.

I also want to avoid refighting a lot of the same battles that were fought
in DRUMS, to no useful conclusion.