Re: Evaluation: draft-ietf-impp-im - Common Profile for Instant Messaging (CPIM)

[Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com>]

>--On 6. august 2003 20:33 -0700 Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com> wrote:
>> draft-ietf-impp-im-03.txt uses RFC 822 ABNF (#mailbox).
>
>I wondered about this too, but discovered that the whole syntax was 
>imported from the mailto: spec, which was written in 822 ABNF; trying to 
>respecify this in newer ABNF seems like an invitation to divergence.

Well, I guess we've flipflopped on this a couple of times.  In this
case it doesn't matter, since Jon's resolution makes it valid in either.

If the original URL document ever tries to advance to Draft, would we ask
them to convert to 2234 ABNF like 2822 did?  What would the divergence
to the sub-documents be then?

>(that said, although I'm not objecting, I get a headache when having an URL 
>scheme that can specify additional headers being used in addressing fields 
>of a message; what would be the semantics of an IM message like this:
>
>To: im:harald@alvestrand.no;subject="This is a problem"
>Subject: Problem? What problem?
>
>)

The proposed resolution doesn't prevent this.

  Bill