On Mon January 31 2005 16:38, Carl Malamud wrote:
Comments are most welcome on this first draft.
In order of presentation in the draft:
Section 2 discussion of encoded-words (top of page 5) is missing
RFC 2231 language identifiers (RFC 2047 is amended by errata (and
one erratum itself has an error, corrected by another erratum) and
by RFC 2231 (which also has errata)). RFC Errata may be found at
the RFC Editor web site: http://www.rfc-editor.org/cgi-bin/errata.pl
Same section: mention should probably be made that encoding indication
characters are case-insensitive.
Same section: re. "resort to a variety of strategies", note that
conforming implementations are limited to the actions specified in
RFC 2047 section 7.
Section 5 is where things go really bad. Section 4 correctly points
out the fact that the Subject header field is intended for human
consumption, and is therefore unsuitable for label cruft. However
wrong such cruft is, the section 5 recommendation to put similar
cruft in RFC [2]822 comments ("human readable informational text";
RFC 2822 section 3.2.3, also "ignored by the formal semantics";
STD 11, a.k.a. RFC 822, section 3.4.3) in Received fields ("intended
for humans"; STD 3, a.k.a. RFC 1123 section 5.2.8) is triply wrong.