So, is it better to put in a sentence about representing non-ASCII
text in the group name without including a replyable address?
The main motivation is to provide a syntax for a non-replyable address
in From: and Sender: headers for cases where that is appropriate. See
the EAI downgrade
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
I see no way to explain the narrow EAI use case in this context
without either dragging in a whole bunch of EAI that has no business
being here or leaving various things dangling.
ack. mumble.
So I'll suggest a bit of an
small tweaks:
On 10/18/2012 3:28 AM, John Levine wrote:
So, is it better to put in a sentence about representing non-ASCII
text in the group name without including a replyable address?
The main motivation is to provide a syntax for a non-replyable address
in From: and Sender: headers for
--On Thursday, October 18, 2012 07:13 -0400 Barry Leiba
barryle...@computer.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Dave Crocker
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
I see no way to explain the narrow EAI use case in this
context without either dragging in a whole bunch of EAI that
has no business
On 10/18/2012 6:45 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
As I said earlier, I can live with almost anything if it is
correct and allows us to move forward. I am, however, getting
more concerned about the consequences to the virtual 5322bis and
its future instantiation if we go down these paths. I would
On Thu, 2012-10-18, John C Klensin wrote:
snip
As I said earlier, I can live with almost anything if it is
correct and allows us to move forward. I am, however, getting
more concerned about the consequences to the virtual 5322bis and
its future instantiation if we go down these paths. I
I have wondered about that limitation for at least 15 years. I
have come up with possible explanations but without a shred of
evidence from the RFCs.
FWIW,
The construct of group is pretty much an assertion of an aggregate
identity. That is, an identity beyond that of the listed
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.
Document: draft-leiba-5322upd-from-group-06
Minor issues:
1.It is not clear from the draft what the use case for using the group
construct is. Section 3 talks about the issues with using the group
construct and recommend limited use, but this is the only information.
The main driver for this work is to add support for EAI
On 10/17/2012 10:49 AM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
Minor issues:
1. It is not clear from the draft what the use case for using the group
construct is. Section 3 talks about the issues with using the group
construct and recommend limited use, but this is the only information.
On 10/17/2012 10:49 AM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
Minor issues:
1. It is not clear from the draft what the use case for using the group
construct is. Section 3 talks about the issues with using the group
construct and recommend limited use, but this is the only information.
--On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 12:00 -0700
ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
A single sentence summarizing what benefit is achieved with
the change, along with a couple of usage examples, would go a
long way towards showing how this update helps in practical
ways.
I could live with a
On 10/17/2012 12:27 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 12:00 -0700
ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
A single sentence summarizing what benefit is achieved with
the change, along with a couple of usage examples, would go a
long way towards showing how this update
--On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 13:26 -0700 Dave Crocker
d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
...
A single sentence summarizing what benefit is achieved with
the change, along with a couple of usage examples, would go
a long way towards showing how this update helps in
practical ways.
I could live
--On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 12:00 -0700
ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
A single sentence summarizing what benefit is achieved with
the change, along with a couple of usage examples, would go a
long way towards showing how this update helps in practical
ways.
I could live
On 10/17/2012 2:32 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
Channeling my inner Maslow, I see the present text as best, an additional
sentence or two as next best, a sentence and a cite to the downgrade doc next
in line, and including actual EAI examples in this doc as the worst choice.
The problem I have with
Channeling my inner Maslow, I see the present text as best, an additional
sentence or two as next best, a sentence and a cite to the downgrade doc
next in line, and including actual EAI examples in this doc as the worst
choice.
The problem I have with the current text is that it says 'what'
On 10/17/2012 2:32 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
Channeling my inner Maslow, I see the present text as best, an additional
sentence or two as next best, a sentence and a cite to the downgrade doc next
in line, and including actual EAI examples in this doc as the worst choice.
The problem I have
On 10/17/2012 5:18 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
If you really think this is important to explain why we're making
this change against the overall context of RFC 5322 - and I most
certainly do not agree that it is important to do so - then the best
use case to add is the negative one: The elimination
Channeling my inner Maslow, I see the present text as best, an additional
sentence or two as next best, a sentence and a cite to the downgrade doc
next in line, and including actual EAI examples in this doc as the worst
choice.
The problem I have with the current text is that it says
20 matches
Mail list logo
