Ned wrote: > We are way past the point where backwards compatibility is an > acceptable excuse for something like this.
I'm curious if somebody can produce an example, where NO-WS-CTL is actually needed in "domain literals" of an existing network using SMTP and/or the Internet Message format. At the moment I still think that it's not even "backwards compatible", it's a hypothetical "IPvFuture" construct incompatible with RFC 3986. > if common sense isn't enough here, how about the fact that it > is pretty clear that these things have obvious and severe > interoperability problems that will make it hard to meet the > criterua for draft standard? Frank
