Re: Fw: requested tweak to 2822upd grammar - consensus call
Tony Hansen <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.rfc822 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Pete, the original request to add msg-id-kernel came from Alexey. When I asked for a consensus call, Alexey's message was this: Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > I realize that this might be too late now, but I've suggested this > > before and got no response. And I hope this is not controversial for > > AUTH48: > > > > Can we please redefine the msg-id in section 3.6.4: > > > > msg-id = [CFWS] "<" id-left "@" id-right ">" [CFWS] > > > > to be: > > > > msg-id = [CFWS] "<" msg-id-core ">" [CFWS] > > msg-id-core = id-left "@" id-right > > > > This way other documents can reference the thing inside <> more > > easily. The outcome from the consensus call was that 1) it should only be done if it did not perturb AUTH48, and 2) if it's done, its name should be msg-id-kernel instead of msg-id-core. At the time, you indicated a willingness to do it as part of AUTH48. If you're now uneasy about doing it, that's fine: don't do it. **It's not worth slowing things down at this point.** Tony Pete Resnick wrote: > > On 9/26/08 at 9:55 AM -0400, Tony Hansen wrote: > >> From what I understand, the definitions of id-left and id-right that >> msg-id-core refers to are slightly different between usefor and 5322 >> (nee 2822upd). > > That's true, but I don't see what difference that makes. The usefor > document can redefine whatever it likes (including id-left and > id-right). There's no harm if 5322 defines: > > msg-id-core = id-left "@" id-right > > Please someone, explain the objection to using msg-id-core. Otherwise, I > see no reason not to use it. > >> The argument espoused is that adding msg-id-kernel allows that >> internal portion of the msg-id to be used by people in other >> documents; as 5322 stands, that's not possible. > > Do we have an example of someone wanting to use this? > > Also, does adding it also mean that we should remove the last sentence > of 3.6.4? "Semantically, the angle bracket characters are not part of > the msg-id; the msg-id is what is contained between the two angle > bracket characters." > > This change is making me increasingly worried. Are we sure we want to do > this? > > pr