Re: MTS transparency and anonymity

On Sun February 27 2005 22:38, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> 
> Bruce Lilly wrote:
> 
> > We discussed syntax options months ago, and your earlier
> > message prompted a detailed analysis of issues (it was
> > clear that an empty literal wasn't permitted by 822
> 
> If that's clear then it's not in the domain-literal syntax:

It seemed clear from the normative text reference to RFC 820.
[It's also noteworthy that use of domain literals is strongly
discouraged, accompanied by SCREAMING ALL CAPS in 822].
 
> The semantics later says "its contents must conform with the
> needs of the sub-domain in which it is interpreted".  If @[]
> is interpreted as "nowhere", then that's fine.

Possibly. But there's the 2821 ABNF that doesn't permit that.
And any change to syntax that leaves an address field with
semantics of nowhere conflicts with 2821 sect. 3.8.4.
 
> > simply making the From field optional
> 
> Your "updates RfC" section could be a new record.  Bye, Frank

I'm not sure what you mean; making the field optional will
update 822 and 2822.  Changing syntax would at minimum add
2821, 2616, and 3261 to the list (probably others as well).