Re: Getting 2822 to Draft

> The one possible big thing has to do with the ABNF in 2822. Out of 
> either altruism or insanity, some time ago Bruce Lilly had written up 
> changes to the ABNF in 2822 to do some cool things. On the plus side, 
> it seems to get rid of all of the [C]FWS shift-reduce conflicts, and 
> it is already done. On the minus side, I don't know anyone (myself 
> included) who has gone over it with a fine tooth comb, it is a 
> significant number of ABNF changes, and it therefore might recycle us 
> at Proposed. I am open to suggestions on this.
if the new grammar accepted the same language as the old one, I'd 
consider it nothing more than a clarification of the spec, and a reset 
to Proposed would be unnecessary.
or if the only differences could be seen as minor bug fixes to the old 
grammar, I'd consider it a minor bug fix to the spec.
IMHO simplifying the grammar and getting rid of parsing conflicts would 
both be highly desirable improvements.  if it then becomes possible to 
feed the ABNF to a parser generator and generate a verifier for 2822 
messages, that's a huge win.
why not post the revised ABNF as an I-D so that others can go over it 
with a fine tooth comb?  or has this already been done, and I missed 
it?