PMFJI but your opinion has no relation to the real world. At least IMO <g>
As it is I can TELL you most implementors are largely looking at 2822 and
ignoring 822 now. Making it a fnalized standard (good idea) will effectively
rubberstamp that.
So if there is ANYTHING in 822 NOT mentioned in 2822 of importance, it needs
to be grafted in, or mentioned. Anything else should be specifically listed
as altered or deprecated.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Moore" <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
To: "IETF RFC-822 list" <ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Cc: <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>;
<ietf-822(_dot_)amc+0(_at_)nicemice(_dot_)net(_dot_)RemoveThisWord>
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: Regarding SMTP Message specification syntax ...
RFC 822 makes a promise that fields beginning with X- will never be
standardized. If RFC 822 is truly obsoleted by a document that
doesn't restate that promise, then the promise will have been lost;
"obsoleted" is not a formal action, it's just a label put on by the RFC
Editor. and as in this case, it is sometimes misleading.
My view is that the text in RFC 822 stands until it is formally and
explicitly changed.