Re: Intent to revive "expires" header - now: draft-welzl-expires-00.txt

Michael Welzl wrote:

> Now go ahead and tear it to pieces  :-)

s/2234/5234/
s/introduces a new/updates the known/g

Split references in "normative" and "informative".
Don't worry about the problem "what if my RFC is
ready before 2822upd or the Netnews RFC?" at this 
time.

- Expires-field = "Expires:" CFWS date-time [CFWS] CRLF
+ Expires-field = "Expires:" SP date-time CRLF

When I wrote "do not change a single comma in the
Netnews definition" I meant it:  <date-time> has
its own trailing [CFWS], and its own leading [FWS].
I kept the magic Netnews SP above, maybe remove it.

| It is additionally defined in a similar way in
| netnews [5]. 

Charles wrote it was the other way around, Netnews
had it first, later MIXER adopted it; fight it out.

| Such automatic removal without explicit instructions
| from the recipient is strictly forbidden for general
| Internet mail. 

s/Such/Any/, as there is no "such" automatism in the
other specifications.

The RFC-editor funding and the IETF Trust copyright
boilerplates are not more state of the art.  

You need a non-empty IANA considerations section to
update the permanent message header field registry
with a reference to RFC 3864.

You forgot RFC 2119 in the (normative) references.
This draft is not yet ready for an IETF Last Call :-)

 Frank