ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Revisiting RFC 2822 grammar (Subject field)

2004-01-19 06:15:07

Pete Resnick wrote:

On 1/18/04 at 8:56 AM -0500, Bruce Lilly wrote:

According to the latest rfc-index, 1036 has not been obsoleted. It might well be your opinion that it should be obsoleted or reclassified, but that does not affect its official status. You are of course free to petition for reclassification of RFC 1036 to historic status (as RFCs 3166, 3638, etc. have done for other RFCs).


Oy. If I go ahead and get 1036 moved to historic, can we stop having this discussion?


Well, if you can get 1036's requirements for parsing structure of an unstructured field (Subject) repudiated by any means, yes, we can stop having this discussion.

I don't think moving 1036 to historic at this point would be wise, as 1036 does define
several extension fields.

But as the cognizant WG has not seen fit to repudiate the conflicting sections of 1036, it probably should be done by 2822's successor as the text message format is affected. On the other hand, if you can prompt the cognizant WG to either issue a 1036 amendment that specifically addresses the conflicting issues or to issue a draft of a 1036 successor that has a non-zero chance of becoming an RFC, that would work also. To date that WG has produced neither (though at one point about a year ago there was a draft proferred by
Dan Kohn that showed considerable promise).