From what I understand, the definitions of id-left and id-right that
msg-id-core refers to are slightly different between usefor and 5322
(nee 2822upd). In short, msg-id-kernel would be 5322's "equivalent to
usefor's msg-id-core".
The argument espoused is that adding msg-id-kernel allows that internal
portion of the msg-id to be used by people in other documents; as 5322
stands, that's not possible. It might be that it will be widely used.
And it might be that no one will do so, eschewing msg-id-kernel for
usefor's msg-id-core. In the latter case: nothing lost, nothing gained.
We can explore further compatibility issues when we look at 2822ter/5322bis.
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
Pete Resnick wrote:
On 9/9/08 at 8:20 PM -0700, ned+ietf-822(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
Tony Hansen wrote:
Doing a few searches show that some names that don't cause conflicts
are msg-id-internal, msg-id-kernel and msg-id-element. I think the
choice should be between Pete and Lisa.
Not that you asked for additional input, but to offer a personal
comment on the linguistic choices: While "internal" is structurally
correct, it doesn't say much about completeness or utility. And
"element" actually implies incompleteness.
Of the 3 choices, "kernel" nicely implies completeness and utility.
FWIW, I like "kernel" as well. I also have no problem with this change
being made.
So, after Charles's message, I'm no longer clear why the original
(msg-id-core), which already appears in the usefor document, shouldn't
be used. Mind you, I'm myself not entirely clear why we want to do this
at all, but I've got no particular objection to it.
pr