In message <8A462C7931F053236D5EA172(_at_)as-s2n(_dot_)ietf68(_dot_)org>, John C Klensin
<klensin(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> writes
In Section 4.4 on Trace Information, the "ID" clause of the Received
field is defined as
ID = CFWS "ID" FWS String / msg-id
This is claimed to be inconsistent with RFC 2822, which only permits
msg-id.
Not so, RFC2822 has
received = "Received:" name-val-list ";" date-time CRLF
name-val-list = [CFWS] [name-val-pair *(CFWS name-val-pair)]
name-val-pair = item-name CFWS item-value
item-name = ALPHA *(["-"] (ALPHA / DIGIT))
item-value = 1*angle-addr / addr-spec /
atom / domain / msg-id
So in RFC2822 an item-value can be an atom, which covers the cases given
elsewhere by Bill McQuillan in this thread
id 1HUa8g-0004Bl-F8
id l2N38TpF018366
id l2N38UDd018377
id l2N38UN1018378
id F353995479
id A188A95316
id e3Zs1W01e1ZqGfk0000000
id
<20070323033355(_dot_)LYDA18462(_dot_)fed1rmmtai109(_dot_)cox(_dot_)net(_at_)fed1rmimpi01(_dot_)cox(_dot_)net>
"String" is there to provide additional flexibility for gateways, etc.,
for which a message-ID format may not be appropriate, but it has been
suggested that we remove it in the interest of consistency.
No need to remove it, as it is already consistent with RFC2822.
Question: Is the production correct as is, or should "String" be
eliminated as a possibility?
"String" should be retained for consistency with RFC2822 and
compatibility with current usage.
Note that, if the answer is "ok as is", we may want to think about
whether we are happy with the syntax in in 2822.
Regards
--
Paul Overell Internet Platform Development Manager, Thus plc