Tom Petch wrote: > Perhaps, in a year or two, when the surrounding landscape > is more stable, there will be scope for a revision I did consider to "bet on 2822upd" as the "faster horse". See a recent thread on the SMTP list about email-arch I18N, EAI, 2822upd, and all the rest for the context of "bet". And in an older thread on the rfc822 list I noted that IFF RFC.usefor-usefor gets a last minute AUTH48 update for a simplified 2822upd the same should happen for news: URIs. But technically it is unnecessary, the RFC.usefor-usefor syntax works, it permits some constructs working with NNTP for better 2822-compatibility, and it eliminates anything in 2822 that definitely won't work with NNTP. Meanwhile (after the news URI PubReq) 2822upd might end up with a simpler syntax for both sides of the Message-IDs, that's good when it's ready. It will still have anything that was allowed in 2822 as "obs-*" syntax, including what RFC.usefor-usefor has, but also including what won't work as far as RFC.usefor-usefor and NNTP are concerned. What I considered (as "faster horse") was to replace the normative RFC.usefor-usefor reference by 2822upd. But it wont't fly, I need more RFC.usefor-usefor limitations: No 2822(upd) obs-*, no ">", and arguably the length limit. An attempt (before the Last Call) to discuss the chances of last minute updates in RFC.usefor-usefor on the USEFOR list got no replies, therefore "let's see what happens" is IMO good enough, nothing is "wrong" with RFC.usefor-usefor from my POV. Hopefully 2822upd will further simplify the syntax. 2822upd certainly won't remove the "@" between LHS and RHS, for news URIs that is older than RFC 1738, I found it also in RFC 1630. I could add RFC 1630 to the references if that helps (?). BTW, RFC 1630 mentions the mid: and cid: schemes, specified later in another RFC, that other RFC might need an update when 2822upd got its number, no lack of opportunities to do "something" later. While I'm at it, to grok the mailto-bis draft it IMO helps to read the news-URI memo "as is". For a simplified syntax that trick can't work. > I did not understand the second paragraph of s8.3 at first > and believe that this should be made clearer, in line with > the explanation that the author provided on the uri.w3.org > mailing list. I posted a -09 after you wrote that, also including feedback from you, but I didn't say more in -09 about the old glitch in the MIME registries, let IANA fix it and be done with it. Frank _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf