Subject: Re: References

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:12:14 -0700 (PDT)

I said:
> It cannot be mandatory in USEPRO when it is already defined to be 
> optional in both USEFOR and RFC2822.

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov-usefor@xxxxxxxxx>:

>Surely it can, because USEFOR equally applies to *all* types of USEFOR 
>articles and USEPRO may add additional restrictions for particular types 
>of articles.

While USEFOR applies to all types of articles, the section of USEFOR being 
discussed applies to the References header, and the section of RFC2822 
that USEFOR defers to talks specifically about "replies". USEFOR says "see 
RFC2822", and RFC2822 says References is optional in replies. 

In addition, since USEFOR applies to ALL articles, a definition therein
that makes a header optional makes it optional for ALL articles.

>See my comment above.

Stop being insulting, as if I would ignore your "comment above" until I 
saw your command to "see it" here.

Frank Ellermann <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>One WG member apparently wants an equivalences in the form
>of followup <=> references and followup <=> 2822-reply, but
>that's obviously wrong, 

Yes, that's obviously wrong. Can you tell us who it is who has said this? 

>and the proposed alternative of no
>relation at all between followup and references is also wrong.

It is not wrong if that is how the standards make it, and that is the 
direction that we are heading by making References optional.