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 of an
unnecessary restriction that isn't followed in practice.
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 amalgam, including a cross reference of the
type I prefer to avoid:
1. State that this removes a restriction that was never essential.
2. State that the timing of this removal is to accomodate EAI and
for its use of the now-available features, see [RFCxxxx].
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net