Re: SUMMARY: Limiting msg-id generate syntax

On 5/8/07 at 9:58 PM +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

>Dave Crocker writes:
>>Are we sure that the proposed changes would not require re-cycling 
>>RFC2822 at Proposed Standard?
>
>Hm. I reread 1602 now and can't find any text saying that 
>standards-track progression should drop unused features. Isn't there 
>any?

RFC 2026, section 4.1.2:

    In cases in which one or more options or features
    have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable
    implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard
    level only if those options or features are removed.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated