Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-ID: <Ujp8Phy00WBwA9xywy@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue,  6 Jun 1995 12:48:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Gardiner Myers <jgm+@CMU.EDU>
To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: 822 problem list
Beak: Is

Paragrah 4 of 1.1 is no longer relevant.

Possibly include a reference to MIME for the semantics of a body.  We
may want to change the syntax of a body to *OCTET, but state that in
the absence of a MIME c-t-e, it must be *(CRLF *text)

Requirement in 2.7 "Wherever this construct is used, null elements are
allowed" may not be widely implemented everywhere, especially in
routes.

Some systems have representaions which are unable to distinguish a
blank line separating headers and body from a header continuation line
conataining a single space.

The syntax permits NUL, bare CR, and bare LF in headers and body.

"free insertion of linear-white-space" is actually "free insertion of
linear-white-space and comments".

Return-Path should not be required when Received is present.

The first bulleted item in 4.4.4 is simply incorrect.  The return path
should be used for reporting problems in delivery.

The Encrypted field is obsolete.

6.2.2 continues to be problematic.  The wording in RFC1123 5.2.18
should completely replace 6.2.2.

6.2.5 appears to be obsolete.  At least I don't understand it.

We may want to specify that any single LWSP-char after the colon
separating a field-name from an unstructured field body is not part of
the field body.

-- 
_.John G. Myers		Internet: jgm+@CMU.EDU
			LoseNet:  ...!seismo!ihnp4!wiscvm.wisc.edu!give!up