Re: requested tweak to 2822upd grammar

Requested copy of an off-list mail:

> What if it were named msg-id-interior or some other
> variant instead of msg-id-core?

Well, I strongly support to have only one <msg-id-core>
concept everywhere, creating a new name for the 2822upd
variant does not exactly help with this final goal.

Are the folks wanting the 2822upd variants (sic!) sure
that they really want them ?  Or do they actually want 
some  <id-left> "@" <id-right>  excluding "obs" ?

If it is the latter, the proposed syntax doesn't exclude
"obs" and won't help them.  If it is the former they can
simply say  <id-left> "@" <id-right>  without creating
a new shorthand for this construct.

Third possibility, they actually want <msg-id-core> as
specified in RFC.ietf-usefor-usefor.  That should get
its number this year, the only MISSREF is in Last Call.

Fourth possibility, they want the future "real thing",
a <msg-id-core> limited to what both 2822upd minus obs
*and* RFC.ietf-usefor-usefor allow.

For the fourth option they should wait like everybody
else until there is an IETF consensus about the future
unification.  We are near, but not yet there.

 Frank