--On Wednesday, 11 April, 2007 15:20 -0400 Tony Hansen
<tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com> wrote:
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.
Speaking personally only, I've become convinced that, if the
current text can engender this much discussion and confusion, it
needs to be fixed in some way. I've also become convinced that
both versions of (ii) would cause far more problems than they
are worth. That is partially because I don't see any good use
for mixed codes --especially if all but a specific one are to be
ignored-- that does not require semantics that are not defined
in 2821 and hence would either require an extension or create
even more confusion. I also share Ned's concern that there are
probably clients out there that pick any code in sequence to
look at that we can imagine but, for me, that is actually a
secondary concern.
That is a long-winded way of saying that I've gradually become
convinced that (iii) is the only plausible and responsible
option.
john