On 11.12.18 17:52, Derek Martin wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:37:02PM +0000, Nuno Silva wrote: > > > Yes, I did not think I needed to say this explicity, but it also > > > explains why: Because that usage is the one that corresponds to the > > > stated purpose of those fields. As such it is the obvious, and should > > > be preferred, way to use them on replies. Using the fields the way > > > they are intended to be used, to me, adheres to the principle of least > > > surprise. > > > > Can't what is the least surprising to you be more surprising to somebody > > else? > > In general? Of course. But not in this particular context, no. The > RFC is the spec, and being logically consistent with the spec is the > only "least surprising" that matters.
May I humbly suggest that what matters most is what Kevin thinks, as he's the one with his sleeves rolled up. Then the thoughts of the majority of the community bear consideration, especially when based on reason. Last and least come a sole opinion based on taking an RFC as evidence, then rewriting it when it fails to support an entrenched inflexible view. But full points for doggedness. ;-) Erik
