John R Levine wrote:
As I said previously, you can restrict BATV in this way but I really have
to wonder if the resulting very narrowly applicable mechanism is worth the
Depends how much blowback you get. When you get as much as I do, it's
extremely worth the bother.
Maybe you are talking about different goals, you could publish BATV
as infomational "how to" RFC (for folks who don't find the Wikipedia
article with a link to the draft). For standards track it needs to
be more general. Our chances to do odd things with local parts are
limited, look at RFC 4646 with its five dimensions language + script
+ region + extension + variant folded into a single language tag,
arguably that is already one step beyond the limit.