[Cc'ing our ADs just in case they didn't notice this.]
On 5/8/07 at 8:48 AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
Are we sure that the proposed changes would not require re-cycling
RFC2822 at Proposed Standard?
I can't see why. The only real change here is to remove
"no-fold-quote" from the "allowed to generate" syntax for message
ids. (Of course we still require that they be interpreted.) I think
this amounts to "removing an unused/non-interoperable feature", which
is a *desirable* thing when moving to Draft.
Pete Resnick wrote:
There appears to be a good contingent that is willing to limit the
generate syntax for message id's to dot-atoms on the left of the
"@" and domain-name- or domain-literal- looking things on the
right. This would not change the *interpret* (obs-) syntax which
would still require interpreting quoted-strings on the left. So,
scream now or forever hold your peace on the following:
- Define the left hand side of the "@" in msg-id to be
(dot-atom-text / ob-id-left)
- Leave the right hand side of msg-id as it is (dot-atom-text /
no-fold-literal / obs-id-right)
- Leave the text to normatively RECOMMEND (or should it be
REQUIRE?) that the right hand side be a domain identifier (either
domain name or domain literal)
I'd prefer to leave the ABNF of domain-literal the way it is and
limit in the text. We've already got examples of having to unlimit
Received because of bugs in 2822 and so that fixes in 2821bis could
be accommodated; I'd rather leave it to other documents to define
what it is to be a valid "domain identifier." (Remember, you've got
to interpret all of the mess anyway, so the only thing that putting
it into the ABNF would do is reinforce the requirement in the text.)
I'd also be inclined to *not* talk about case-sensitivity and
comparisons since nowhere is it discussed in 2822.
pr
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102