On 2/8/2018 10:05 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
RFC 7405 is also useful along these lines.
If those modifications are used, sure. If not, not so much.
So, no error in 5322. As for the erratum below, not having ABNF for the
header field does seem like a miss, though I'm not sure it should be
marked as more than "Hold for document update".
Consider:
1. RFC 5322 specifies ABNF for field names that is in terms of 'allowed'
characters, but has no text constraining the method of defining the
specific characters for specific header-field names.
2. Section 1.2.2 notes that "..." is case insensitive, but that the %...
is inflexible (ie, sensitive.)
3. Nothing in the definition of optional-field requires using the "..."
construct to define the header field name. It merely defines what range
of characteris allowed in a field-name.
fields = *(trace
...
optional-field)
optional-field = field-name ":" unstructured CRLF
field-name = 1*ftext
ftext = %d33-57 / ; Printable US-ASCII
%d59-126 ; characters not including
; ":".
4. If a spec defines a field-name using the %... construct, it has
effectively required case sensitivity in processing the field-name.
5. That was most certainly /not/ what was 'intended' for field-name
parsing, going at least back to RFC 733. Violation of 'intent' is the
criterion for an RFC erratum.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html