Re: Update to "simplified" RFC 2822 grammar

Bruce Lilly <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.rfc822
Organization Bruce Lilly
Message-ID <[email protected]> 
On Mon March 7 2005 15:14, Dave Crocker wrote:

> your work falls into the category of "sure wish we had had access to it 10 years ago."

So do I :-).
 
> in order to incorporate abnf changes to rfc2822 at this point, we would have to re-cycle the specification at Proposed, because the abnf would be new and -- inherently - unstable.

The prevailing opinion when this was last discussed (over a year ago)
was that a reset would be unwarranted. See
http://www.imc.org/ietf-822/mail-archive/msg03790.html
and related messages.
 
> The reading of the community is that it would rather advance the existing work than start over learning to work with the new ABNF, no matter how well done the new abnf might be.

Which community? By whose poll?
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.