I'm happy with this, as long as it's very clear in 2822upd that the
developer writer must refer to *821 to find the true definition for what
their code should generate. I also have no problem with it being a
normative reference.
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
Pete Resnick wrote:
On 4/23/07 at 9:15 PM -0400, Bruce Lilly wrote:
...
2. 2821 specifies the "for" clause name as having a value of
1 * ( Path / Mailbox ), whereas 2822 permits only a single
addr-spec or one or more angle-addrs
Allowed above by any number of "angle-addr" or "addr-spec". 2821bis can
limit as desired.
Although it may be tempting to specify a generic field in 2822bis and
punt the specifics to 2821bis, [...] it may be (depending on how loose
the 2822bis specification is) impossible in general to parse such
fields. 2822 as written hasn't quite fallen over that cliff, but it's
teetering on the edge:
Received:;1 Jan 2007 02:34:56 -0700
I would claim that 2822 is already well over that cliff and the
suggested change above really just finishes the task. I'd prefer to keep
the lack of normative reference from 2822 to 2821, and making it generic
does that.
pr