[Top] [All Lists]

Re: rfc2821bis-01 Issue 18: Usability of 1yz replies

2007-04-11 12:20:11

John C Klensin wrote:
But, as several people have pointed out, there is ample reason
to infer an assumption that all codes in a multiline reply will
be the same from the text.

You know thats fine, and its a natural assumption. But its doesn't represent reality and that reality has evolved from the fact it has been possible all along to have inconsequential and different reply codes in continuation lines.

Remember the ONLY thing that a developer has to go by is a 25 year old suggestion and it is the ONLY thing to go by for implementing a extremely no brainer concept that the only ultimate reply code is the last one, hence why it is in place in wide practice. It is not by coincidence. Why would any system not USE the only logical suggestion for a reply code design is beyond me.

I honestly don't grasp the resistance. If this has all to to do with your RFC time-line, thats one thing, but lets not try to continue to look for reasons to not legitimize what is really a wide practice. What is being suggested isn't breaking ANYTHING and it has MORE value than for the future that what is being suggested otherwise.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>