John C Klensin wrote:
I've assigned Issue 17 to the question of whether, if reply
lines constitute a continuation set, all of the codes are
expected to be the same and whether this needs clarification.
It appears that there are three options:
(i) Do nothing, leaving the text as is
(ii) Make it clear that the codes may be different and
that clients are expected to examine all of them.
(iii) Prohibit different codes and, optionally, suggest
that it is ok for a client to select one of them and
assume that all of the others are the same.
<pseudo-chair hat on>
I've been trying to see if there is any sort of consensus building.
While there has been lots of discussion on this issue, it is unclear
that I've seen clearcut stakes placed on particular choices. As I review
the email, I see essentially *even preferences* for each of the 3
options that John posted.
For (ii), we've heard of one implementation (Exim) that looks only at
the 1st code, a claim of another (sendmail) that was later refuted by
checking the code, and general reports of others that all look at the
last code.
I think we've gotten to the point where the discussion is starting to
repeat and we need to try this again.
Please state your preference for one of the following. (I've broken
John's (ii) into two parts.)
(i) Do nothing, leaving the text as is
(ii-a) Make it clear that the codes may be different and
that clients are expected to respect the *last* value listed
(ii-b) Make it clear that the codes may be different and
that clients are expected to respect the *first* value listed
(iii) Prohibit different codes and, optionally, suggest
that it is ok for a client to select one of them and
assume that all of the others are the same.
If there is still no clear consensus, the default will be (i).
</pseudo-chair hat off>
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com