Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-2822upd (Internet Message Format) toDraft Standard

2008-04-04 Thread Frank Ellermann
Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I am disturbed that the messy situation of X- headers, > created by RFC 2822's silence on the subject, has not > been fixed. As far as 2822 and 2822upd are concerned header fields not specified in 2822 or 2822upd resp. are covered by in section 3.6.8. This section doe

Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-2822upd (Internet Message Format) toDraft Standard

2008-04-04 Thread John C Klensin
--On Friday, 04 April, 2008 14:43 +0200 Frank Ellermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> I am disturbed that the messy situation of X- headers, >> created by RFC 2822's silence on the subject, has not >> been fixed. > > As far as 2822 and 2822upd are concerned header

Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-2822upd (Internet Message Format) toDraft Standard

2008-04-04 Thread Brian E Carpenter
John, I think I agree with your suggested path. On 2008-04-05 02:03, Simon Josefsson wrote: ... > Can X-* headers really be registered under RFC 3864? One X- header is provisionally registered under RFC 3864 (and is marked in the registry as 'deprecated'). On 2008-04-05 01:43, Frank Ellermann

Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-2822upd (Internet Message Format) toDraft Standard

2008-04-07 Thread Pete Resnick
Coming to consensus on this is going to be messy, as it was in DRUMS, which is what landed us with no comment in the document. To wit: On 4/4/08 at 5:47 PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: >There are two ways to interpret the "X-" and I think they yield >different answers about what should be done.

Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-2822upd (Internet Message Format) toDraft Standard

2008-04-07 Thread Dave Crocker
Pete Resnick wrote: >> (1) Partially restore the 822 text, stressing "private use", rather >> than "experiental". > > I don't think we'll be able to do this; see (3) below. ... >> (3) Encourage X-headers for strictly private use, i.e., they SHOULD >> NOT be used in any context in which interc

Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-2822upd (Internet Message Format) toDraft Standard

2008-05-21 Thread Brian E Carpenter
Lisa, Could you let us see your summary of the discussion about (not) documenting the X-headers? I haven't seen any further comments since Dave's message below, and it appears that the IESG is ballotting on the document now. Regards Brian On 2008-04-08 06:34, Dave Crocker wrote: > > Pete Res

Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-2822upd (Internet Message Format) toDraft Standard

2008-05-22 Thread Lisa Dusseault
I had some email outage and only saw this after today's IESG Evaluation, sorry. I didn't see consensus for a particular change as a result of this conversation. There was widespread agreement that X-headers are messy, but not what to say about them. Lisa On May 21, 2008, at 7:22 PM, Brian