Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-billon-expires-06.txt> (Updated Use of the Expires Message Header Field) to Proposed Standard

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,
At 06:28 AM 29-11-2022, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
>following document: - 'Updated Use of the Expires Message Header Field'
>   <draft-billon-expires-06.txt> as Proposed Standard

I read draft-billon-expires-08 quickly.  Section 2 states that: 
"Message creators MUST NOT include more than one Expires header field 
in the message they send."  The statement, if I am not mistaken, 
ought to be read as an absolute prohibition.  The next statement 
recommends (SHOULD) that the Expires header field ought to be ignored 
if there is more than one Expires header field.  What are the valid 
reasons for ignoring an absolute prohibition?

The "improved experience" is Section 4 sounds like marketing terminology.

The header field is currently in use in controlled environments, e.g. 
the military.  I am not entirely convinced that it would be great to 
use the "lose its validity" feature for  email over the Internet, 
excluding the notifications from social networks, as it moves the bar 
from "message was not received" to "Inbox message was not displayed".

Regards,
S. Moonesamy