Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id BAA02911; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 01:26:44 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.7); Mon, 28 Oct 1996 01:25:15 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id BAA02789; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 01:25:11 -0500 Received: from glaucus.cso.uiuc.edu (glaucus.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.81.2]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id BAA02748; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 01:24:58 -0500 Received: from resnick1.isdn.uiuc.edu (resnick1.isdn.uiuc.edu [192.17.16.67]) by glaucus.cso.uiuc.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id AAA08378 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 1996 00:26:01 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: resnick@glaucus.cso.uiuc.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Eudora [Macintosh version 3.1a7] Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 00:16:30 -0600 To: drums@cs.utk.edu From: Pete Resnick Subject: What counts as "obsolete syntax"? OK, I'm hopefully finishing up draft 00 of the message format (i.e. 822bis) soon. Before I'm convinced I should let others take a look at it, I have an organizational question: It was roughly decided that the syntax would include "obsolete-" rules; that is, there would be some rules whose names would start with "obsolete-", and these would be for the MUST accept but MUST NOT or SHOULD NOT generate type things. I think things like the military time zones and explicit source routes fall into this category. And there is the question: There are a bunch of things that are pretty clearly MUST NOT and SHOULD NOT generates, but there are other things which we have weakly claimed SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be done. For example, free insertion of linear-white-space within dates some people have claimed SHOULD NOT be done. There are other things that we would like to be generated, but are not completely disgusted that other things are floating around out on the net. The specifics are not important; the question is, which of this stuff should be considered "obsolete" and which of it should be in the regular syntax but noted as SHOULD NOT? Some rough opinions would be appreciated. Feel free to give examples of things *you* would like to see in one section or the other, but I emplore others: PLEASE DON'T SPEND LOTS OF TIME NOW ARGUING ABOUT SPECIFIC EXAMPLES. I'll take a first cut with my own biases, and then when you get the document, you'll have plenty of time to complain to your hearts content. I just want a rough idea of where people think this should be headed. BTW: Drag and drop text editing is a *wonderful* tool for RFC writing with lots of ABNF! :-) pr -- Pete Resnick QUALCOMM Incorporated Work: (217)337-6377 / Fax: (217)337-1980