Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id MAA09423; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 12:32:53 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.7); Mon, 30 Dec 1996 12:32:38 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id MAA09389; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 12:32:35 -0500 Received: from a4.jck.com (ns.jck.com [206.99.215.40]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id MAA09383; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 12:32:32 -0500 Received: from white-box.jck.com ("port 2052"@white-box.jck.com) by a4.jck.com (PMDF V5.1-3 #16053) with SMTP id <0E38M241Q00IKP@a4.jck.com> for drums@cs.utk.edu; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 12:32:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 12:32:27 -0500 (EST) From: John C Klensin Subject: Re: blank line as head/body separator In-reply-to: <961230120930.ZM22152@chrome.office.aol.com> Sender: john@mail1.reston.mci.net To: KnowlesB@aol.net Cc: drums@cs.utk.edu Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Simeon for Windows Version 4.1 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Priority: NORMAL X-Authentication: none On Mon, 30 Dec 1996 12:09:29 -0500 Brad Knowles wrote: > Sounds good. Is this a change from "SHOULD" to "MUST" from > one of the various RFCs? No, it is a one-step jump from "may send any case or combination" to "MUST send upper". Whether the change --which invalidates existing conforming implementations-- is justified by the magnitude of the problem here is something the WG will have to decide. And Chris will have to decide when the WG has decided -- the editor's position is that telling an implementation that clearly conforms today that it is no longer conforming requires very strong and clear consensus. --john