Re: Is RFC5322 a 'protocol'?

On 01/06/2014 05:28 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> New year.  New time for abstract queries...

Do you mean with this that you have been waiting until 2014 would start, 
before sending these questions? ;-)

>
> In spite of its title, I believe the *22 series of documents might 
> qualify as a protocol, rather than "merely" as an object format 
> specification.
>
> The difference I see between a format and a protocol is that the 
> latter specifies actions to take.
>
> From RFC 5322's basic specification, the parts of the document that 
> can be argued to specify protocol is, therefore:
>
>      Originator fields (From:/Sender:/Reply-to:)
>
> Possibly also: <return>.
>
> I suspect some of the additional fields that have been specified in 
> separate documents similarly contain directions about actions to be 
> taken.
>
>
> Thoughts?

Can you elaborate on why you think the Originator fields qualify as 
protocol and other fields (like the paragraph on "Destination Address 
Fields") would not? Assuming for the moment that your 'definition' of 
protocol is correct, I fail to see why Originator fields would qualify 
as 'protocol'.

And what is the problem that corresponds to this solution?

/rolf

_______________________________________________
ietf-822 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822