The replacements for rfc 1894 <draft-vaudreuil-1894bis-02.txt> no longer
defines xtext. The definition is left-over from earlier drafts of rfc1894.
RFC 1894 does not itself use xtext, so the definition was rather extranious.
This would leave 1891bis as the single, formal, canonical definition of
xtext.
Greg V.
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric A. Hall [mailto:ehall(_at_)ehsco(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 3:52 PM
To: ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: canonical reference for xtext
The xtext data-type is defined in multiple mail-related RFCs. Alas, these
definitions are different:
RFC 1891, section 5. Additional parameters for RCPT and MAIL commands
| "xtext" is formally defined as follows:
|
| xtext = *( xchar / hexchar )
|
| xchar = any ASCII CHAR between "!" (33) and "~" (126) inclusive,
| except for "+" and "=".
RFC 1894, section 2.1.1. General conventions for DSN fields
| "xtext" is formally defined as follows:
|
| xtext = *( xchar / hexchar / linear-white-space / comment )
|
| xchar = any ASCII CHAR between "!" (33) and "~" (126) inclusive,
| except for "+", "\" and "(".
RFC 2554 cites RFC 1891 for its use of "xtext"
Not sure if there's a question here. I would gather that there isn't a
canonical definition for xtext (correct me if I'm wrong, please), and
people will use either the 1891 or 1894 definitions as needed (or make up
another one, as needed). Perhaps any update to 2821 should include one as
a suitable reference.
--
Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/