Dave Crocker writes:
Are we sure that the proposed changes would not require re-cycling
RFC2822 at Proposed Standard?
Hm. I reread 1602 now and can't find any text saying that
standards-track progression should drop unused features. Isn't there
any?
d/
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)
+1
I tend towards RECOMMEND. In a sample of 750,000 recent message-ids I
found about 99.1% compliance, which is SHOULD-land IMO.
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.)
No opinion.
I'd also be inclined to *not* talk about case-sensitivity and
comparisons since nowhere is it discussed in 2822.
Agree. I can't even think of a way to count what the running code does.
Arnt