Re: Intent to revive "expires" header from draft-ietf-mailext-new-fields-15

Keith Moore wrote:

> then we disagree.  IMO, it's nearly always a disservice to
> the Internet community for us to define a standard way to
> do an undesirable thing.

I think we don't necesarily disagree about this principle,
we apparently disagree that it is applicable for "Expires:".

An undesirable thing here would be applications ignoring the
MUSTard in your proposed semantics.  But suppressing an idea
because fools could intentionally ignore MUSTard is IMO odd.

If the OP insists on it he can publish his idea anyway, e.g.,
as Internet drafts refreshed after 180 days for the next 44
years (I-D versions > 99 might not work).

Or as independent submission in an informational RFC, that's
in theory enough to get a new entry in the permanent message
header field registry.

The fine print of RFC 3864 would likely force him to pick a
new name, if the change controller for Expires: is the IETF.

He could get a provisional registration for "Colour-me-grey"
based on a first draft.  It is not possible to suppress his
idea if he and others insist on it.  

I'd pick the "99 drafts" approach in this situation, because
a new name for an existing header field IMHO makes no sense.
In theory, in practice I don't care enough about "Expires:" 
in e-mail to explore dark corners in Brian's marauder's map.

 Frank