Subject: [EAI] Language question for utf8headers doc

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:39:22 +0100

The document says:

   The following rules are intended to extend the corresponding rules in
   RFC 2822 to allow UTF8 characters.

The document does not say that it updates 2822; should it say so?

				Ted

_______________________________________________
IMA mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:13:48 -0000

> The document does not say that it updates 2822; should it say so?

That is a good question.

Since what we are constructing is an Experimental Protocol, which cannot  
change any existing standard, then I think the answer has to be 'No'. We  
define a new protocol which is based on RFC 2822 with various extensions.  
Maybe one day it becomes a proposed standard, at which point it may well  
be said to update 2822.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131                       
   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

---

From: Kari Hurtta <[email-masked]>
Date: 22 Mar 2007 07:46:50 +0200

"Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]> writes in gmane.ietf.ima:

> Since what we are constructing is an Experimental Protocol, which
> cannot  change any existing standard, then I think the answer has to
> be 'No'. We  define a new protocol which is based on RFC 2822 with
> various extensions.  Maybe one day it becomes a proposed standard, at
> which point it may well  be said to update 2822.

I think that because this adds new protocol UTF8SMTP, it does not
need update RFC 2822.

Also RFC 2045 (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One:
Format of Internet Message Bodies) does not update RFC 822.

Also RFC 1652 (MTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport) does
not update RFC 821.

I think that this is same situation.  That is just new protocol.

/ Kari Hurtta