John C Klensin wrote:
Opt-info = [Via] [With] [ID] [For] [More-stuff]
where More-stuff would be something like
More-stuff = Keyword-atom String
and with some syntax or handwaving about Keyword-Atom
The "handwaving" must be good enough to find the critical
semicolon before <date-time>. BTW, what's the idea of
replacing all trailing CFWS by a leading CFWS in the
-00 ABNF ? What you now have is leading CFWS everywhere
except from <From-Domain>.
In 2821 it was a trailing CFWS everywhere, no exception.
The only effect I see is that you now have:
"from" x CFWS "by" y [opt-info] [CFWS] ";" FWS date-time
That used to be:
"from" x CFWS "by" y CFWS [opt-info] ";" FWS date-time
The new opt-info starts with CFWS, and the old opt-info
ended with CFWS. This is all about "no WSP before the
semicolon is now allowed", isn't it ? OTOH you lost the
idea "any comments belong to the preceding clause".
Maybe your <More-Stuff> idea allows a better way to fix
the no-CFWS-before-semicolon-is-okay issue.
[possible justifications]
it was really an error in 2821 to not provide this
additional syntax
Not really an error. But CFWS-semicolon was an error.
it reflects at least some existing practice, and the
practice is, at worst, harmless
Yes.
require a discussion with the ADs and the community
No WG => no AD => no required discussion with any ADs.
I really prefer to keep it that way as long as possible.
If we need somebody with a hat there's still the editor
of 2821bis, and that would be you.
(2) I am not at all persuaded that adding explicit provision
for a "length when it got to me" clause would justify the
energy that would be needed to even ask the question above.
ACK. But if an "additional trace header fields MUST reflect
the same by-clause" pops up somewhere I'd like it.
{transparency]
The technical term for this behavior is "bug".
Indeed.
I get badly irritated every time I see an instance of
From
That's a problem for the application/mbox draft. And yes,
I have a script replacing a critical "From " by ">From ",
but ignoring any old ">From ", ">>From ", ... <shrug />
when I see a line of text in an I-D that starts ">From"
(at least one was posted last week)
That -00 I-D isn't ready for Bruce. Besides it tries the
interesting stunt to create ICANN policy via IETF, maybe
the authors missed the recent 954-1032-1591-3912-battles
on the general list. Or they simply don't understand any
"stay out of minefield" sign when it's not written in Hans
or Hant... <eg>
Bye, Frank