> Ned wrote:
> > I therefore wonder if this isn't something we ought to consider
> > "relaxing" in 2821bis.
> If BATV really works everywhere let's do this in 2821ter, please.
> I consider 2821bis as "frozen" modulo some DISCUSSes. A general
> local part tag syntax with a tag registry should not be limited
> to the BATV purposes, it should be open for other applications,
> EAI, SRS, SES, whatever.
And who knows, maybe even standardized subaddressing. OK, I can dream, can't I?
In any case, Frank and I are in total agreement here. We really owe it to
ourselves to get general local part structuring right the first time we put
it in place.
> The SASL RFCs also offer one or two
> very simple mechanisms, and some rules to register more complex
> stuff in separate RFCs. Obviously following the MIME model...
One of MIME's best characteristics IMNSHO.
Ned
