Re: requested tweak to 2822upd grammar

Tony Hansen wrote:

>> msg-id          =   [CFWS] "<" msg-id-core ">" [CFWS]
>> msg-id-core     =   id-left "@" id-right
[...]
> But it *is* an extremely late request.

Yes, and it could cause some confusion for two (or soon
three) NetNews RFCs in the pipeline.  I'd prefer to do
this later (= in the promotion to STD), and not as some
last minute hack with unclear consequences.

There can be only one <msg-id-core>, and it's specified
in an approved NetNews RFC at the moment.  Referenced
in an approved news URI RFC, and in the now Last Called
NetNews protocol.

IFF a future NetNews <msg-id-core> could be strictly the
same as in 2822upd I'd support this last minute hack,
but this is not the case.

BTW, the proposal to adopt the NetNews syntax wholesale
in 2822upd was proposed here, but not adopted.  At the
moment we have these relations for a msg-id-core syntax:

  (2822upd - obs) < NetNews, NetNews < (2822 - obs)
   (2822 - obs)   < 2822upd, NetNews < 3977

It would be more tricky when adding news URL relations,
they were related to RFCs 977, 1036, 1738 among others.

It is IMO critical to have *exactly* one place with the
final authoritative <msg-id-core> syntax.  This is *NOT*
2822upd, because that would pull in both "obs" and ">".

Let 2822ter and NetNews-bis deal with two last missing 
pieces for convergence, the issue of the length and ">".

-1

 Frank