In
<5(_dot_)1(_dot_)0(_dot_)14(_dot_)2(_dot_)20040430145623(_dot_)025c0938(_at_)127(_dot_)0(_dot_)0(_dot_)1>
Graham Klyne <gk(_at_)ninebynine(_dot_)org> writes:
In response to an off-list comment, I'm making a small revision of the mail
message header registry draft [1] to mark header fields defined in RFC822
(as well as RFC2822) as standard rather than just "standards-track". This
raised two questions:
But this does raise the question of a header that was defined in some
standard (say RFC 822) and subsequently changed in some significant manner
by a later standards-track RFC that only achieved Proposed Standard (e.g.
RFC 2822). The difference might be such as to warrant a change in the
registry (e.g. the later document might explicitly obsolete or deprecate
it). You would then have to be careful to include references to both
documents, and maybe remove the "Standard" label.
I don't think any problems of this kind arise in the case of the 822/2822
pair, apart from the "Encrypted" case that you mentioned.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave,
CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5