Re: New Internet Draft: draft-ietf-uri-url-mailserver-00.txt

Stephen R. van den Berg (berg@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de)
Wed, 25 Jan 1995 20:01:41 +0100


Message-Id: <9501251901.AA21729@tabaqui>
From: berg@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Stephen R. van den Berg)
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 20:01:41 +0100
In-Reply-To: Paul Hoffman's message as of 1995 Jan 24 Tue 10:03.
       <v02110104ab4ae2949d79@[165.227.40.33]>
To: uri@bunyip.com
Subject: Re: New Internet Draft: draft-ietf-uri-url-mailserver-00.txt

Paul Hoffman <ietf-lists@proper.com> wrote:
>Headers are given in RFC822 format, and it is likely (and probably
>preferable) that only a "Subject:" header be included. Headers are given
>without spaces after them, such as "Subject:current-issue".

Two things:

- I might be overlooking it, but I think this draft is still lacking
  a more explicit note about the missing space after a field-name.
  I.e. something saying that "if you want a space you *have* to encode
  it like 'Subject:%20current-issue'", or maybe an explicit url with the
  corresponding mail message generated from it.
  I know that it should not need to be mentioned, but I fear that people
  will be sloppy in their interpretation of the rfc and subsequently
  create differing implementations.

- RFC822 (and probably others) are referring to fields and fieldnames, you
  seem to be talking about "headers".  This might be a bit confusing.
  There usually is only one header, and this header contains several
  fields.  I suggest you change the wording accordingly.

-- 
Sincerely,                                  berg@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de
           Stephen R. van den Berg (AKA BuGless).

"Well, if we're going to make a party of it, let's nibble Nobby's nuts!"