John C Klensin wrote: [2822 vs. 2822upd] > This is, of course, the sort of thing that can be changed in an > RFC Editor note if, in fact, 2822 is ready and more or less > concurrent. Modifying the reference is simple. Removing various NO-WS-CTL, DEL, and a NUL in 2821bis itself, not inherited from 2822(upd), for consistent usage with 2822upd (and net-utf8) isn't trivial. Maybe the interoperabilty report will say "nobody uses it, and some implementations don't support it". It could also arrive at the opposite conclusion, "most implementations survive it, some even use it" (I'd be curious for *what*). Or the likely outcome "who knows, nobody mentioned NO-WS-CTL and NUL in such obscure places as greetings or domain literals". Obscure domain literals didn't work everywhere, and that's a "simple" 2822upd <dcontent> case. Where it's not yet clear what 2822upd will do, move it to "obs" or to /dev/null. If 2822upd moves it only to "obs", then 2821bis needs its own syntax without NO-WS-CTL, because NO-WS-CTL in IPvFuture (or rather the 2821bis name for IPvFuture) is already known to be neither used nor interoperable. For the other cases of DEL, NO-WS-CTL, and NUL we haven't seen any tests so far. For various 127 in the ABNF it's plausible that they are mere typos, excluding CTL but allowing DEL makes no sense (i.e. there would be a comment if that's intentional). Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf