[Top] [All Lists]

Re: New 2822upd-04 - obs-NO-WS-CTL

2008-01-16 16:30:21

Pete Resnick wrote:

Try this instead:

Thanks.  As soon as an I-D is available on the Tools server
the "diff" links in the HTML output can compare N+1 and N.
If you want the comparison to 2822 itself, try this:

For now I consider -03 as "known good", and try to figure 
out if -04 is "better".  Points as I see them (top down):

* 3.2.2
  <ctext> is supposed to be VCHAR minus "(", ")", and "\",
  the syntax says decimal 33..39 and 93..126.  Please add
  41..91 again.

* 3.4.1
  <quoted-pair> in <dcontent>, compare Charles' and Ned's
  comments.  As far as this allows for \[, \\, and \] in a
  <domain-literal> I'm not aware of any case (incl. MIXER)
  where this is needed.  If this allows any <quoted-pair>,
  because that's as it was in RFC 2822 I'm curious what an
  "interop" report will say (good, bad, or ugly).  Outside
  of a Message-ID I'm not very hot about it.

  <obs-dtext> is harmful, there are no domain literals with
  NO-WS-CTL, please kill this obscenity or show me where it
  was needed. 

* 3.5, 3.6.2, 3.6.3, 3.6.5
  Missing blank lines between prose and syntax.  I never
  got that effect with xml2rfc, your figure-artwork-ABNF
  magic must be different from what I use.

* 3.6.4
  "Though optional, every message SHOULD" [...].  Please
  remove "though optional", an unqualified SHOULD already
  takes care of obsolete implementations.  

  Why are In-Reply-To and References simultaneously 
  recommended (SHOULD), how about limiting the In-Reply-To
  SHOULD to messages without References ?  Nothing's wrong
  if a message has only References, or is it ?

| later in this section, the use of a domain name or 
| literal Internet address is RECOMMENDED for the [RHS]

  "Recommending" a domain literal is not what RFC 822 did:
  At least for a Message-ID a domain literal can be a bad
  idea, IMO it's a last resort before trying random garbage.

  For <no-fold-literal> see above, no <quoted-pair>, please.

  <obs-id-right> points back to <domain>, that forward to
  <obs-domain>, back to dot-separated <atom>s with <CFWS>,
  shudder.  But you got rid of obs-NO-WS-CTL in <dcontent>,
  good.  Maybe move <obs-id-right> from 4.5.4 to 4.4, ditto
  <obs-id-left>, historically that's where they belong to.

[I ignore further missing empty lines between prose + ABNF]

* 3.6.8 (matter of taste)
  You could now write 'VCHAR excl. ":"' in the <ftext>
  comment, or 'printable US-ASCII excluding ":"' similar
  to what you have for <qtext>.  It's not more necessary
  to mention that <ftext> can't contain SP and control.

* 4.1
  <obs-NO-WS-CTL> also doesn't include NUL, fortunately.
  How about dropping the obs- prefix from obs-NO-WS-CTL ?
  It's anyway not used outside of the the obs-chapter 4.

  Oops, 4234bis "forgot" to define NUL forcing you to say
  %d0.  But 4234bis mentions NUL in a comment.  Maybe NUL
  could be still added in AUTH48 to 4234bis (?)
  <obs-qp> boils down to "CTL minus HTAB", maybe note it
  as ABNF comment.  The full syntax is necessarily clumsy.

  You got rid of <obs-text>, now that surprises me.  It
  was used in <text>, indirectly <quoted-pair> (killed),
  indirectly <body> (???), and <obs-utext>.

  The bare CR or bare LF magic went from <obs-utext> to
  <obs-unstruct>, that should be okay.  But <VCHAR> in
  <obs-utext> is wrong, it's covered by <unstructured>.

  I think you have lost NO-WS-CTL in <obs-body>, I fear
  you need it, as soon as you have NUL anything goes :-(

| Semantically, none of the optional CFWS surrounding the
| local-part and the domain are part of the obs-id-left
| and obs-id-right respectively.

  Ditto CFWS within <obs-domain>, see comment for 3.6.4.

Thanks, great progress wrt NO-WS-TL.  And yes, I think
that the NetNews "magic SP" should be limited to NetNews.