On 2/4/08 at 7:38 AM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
RFC 821 uses the syntax:
| <a-d-l> ::= <at-domain> | <at-domain> "," <a-d-l>
| <at-domain> ::= "@" <domain>
Which flatly disagreed with 822 on this point:
route = 1#("@" domain) ":" ; path-relative
2.7. #RULE: LISTS
A construct "#" is defined, similar to "*", as follows:
<l>#<m>element
indicating at least <l> and at most <m> elements, each separated
by one or more commas (","). This makes the usual form of lists
very easy; a rule such as '(element *("," element))' can be shown
as "1#element". Wherever this construct is used, null elements
are allowed, but do not contribute to the count of elements
present. That is, "(element),,(element)" is permitted, but
counts as only two elements. Therefore, where at least one ele-
ment is required, at least one non-null element must be present.
Default values are 0 and infinity so that "#(element)" allows any
number, including zero; "1#element" requires at least one; and
"1#2element" allows one or two.
And remember, it was always the case that things which generated 821
commands from 822 headers had to do all sorts of normalization. This
one is no different.
Why do 2822 and 2822upd keep the...
Only in the obs- syntax because you still need to parse these things.
---- 2: Routes SHOULD be ignored
When interpreting addresses, the route portion SHOULD be ignored.
That statement in isolation *after* the syntax is odd, why not add
it to the prose before the ABNF?
Because the text before the ABNF is always about syntax and the text
after the ABNF is always about semantics. See 3.1.
---- 3: <obs-group-list>
That's a kind of <obs-mbox-list> without <mailbox>, but at least one
comma. Anything else is covered elsewhere. Rather obscure, how
about renaming it, <obs-empty-list> ?
Because its only reason for existing is the obsolete form of group lists.
You could use <obs-empty-list> three times, where you have it as
<obs-group-list>, and to simplify <obs-bcc>
(*Shrug*) I just can't get excited about this one. I think it's clear
enough. If there are others who think a de-reference would be better,
I'll go back and take a look.
Why do 2822 and 2822upd keep the RFC 822 <obs-NO-WS-CTL> in
<obs-dtext>, when it was never allowed in (2)821(bis) ?
I'm staying out of this one. Convince enough others, I will change
it. Don't, I won't.
- period character is currently used in many messages in
- the display-name portion of addresses
+ period character is sometimes erroneously used in
+ messages in the display-name portion of addresses
Again, I can't get excited about this. We're already in the obs-
syntax, where it's perfectly clear that none of these things are
correct to generate. Seems redundant. Unless others think it's
unclear, I'll leave it.
---- Last Call now ?
Tony? I'm all for it.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102