spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: idnits

2005-05-11 12:53:35
In <42800F6F(_dot_)65AA(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> Frank Ellermann 
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> writes:

BTW, please please please read this review of draft-kucherawy
in ietf-822:

<news://news.gmane.org/200505091411(_dot_)13936(_dot_)blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com>
<http://mid.gmane.org/200505091411(_dot_)13936(_dot_)blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com>

Interesting reading.


Don't think that my reply defeated his point about "adding
mail header fields in transit", so get ready for a battle
about our "Received-SPF".

The Received-SPF header field is already defined as a trace field and
SHOULD be placed above the Received: headers.  I once argued with Meng
that this SHOULD should be changed to MUST, but Meng disagreed and I
haven't changed it.  

In another thread on the smtp list they discuss RfC 3463,
looking into your text I don't find any RfC 3463 reference,
is this as you want it ?

I reference RFC2034 instead of RFC1894.  RFC3463 obsoletes RFC1894.
I'll check into which RFC is the most appropriate, there appears to be
several.


Bill Fenner's ABNF checker has a problem with your "empty
rules", maybe ask him how to handle this, he's a nice guy.

I have been using the ABNF checker at: http://www.apps.ietf.org/abnf.html

With the "empty rules" (really, references to rules defined in other
RFCs), it validates with fewer warnings than if I omit them.  Looking
at RFC2234, it appears that empty rules are not valid.  *sigh*.


That issue was already mentioned in my -01pre2 report:

| You could say something like this (same idea as in RfC 3834
| chapter 5.1 syntax):
|
|   The symbols "dot-atom", "quoted-string", "comment", "CFWS",
|   and "FWS" are defined in [RFC2821].

It's perfectly possible that this is a hallucination, but I'm
getting very nervous if it's shared by Bill's ABNF checker.

And if you do that, you end up with undefined references to the above
ABNF terms.  I liked the longer comments on each terms, so I left them
the way they were.


Please ask Bill what to do, if it's only a bug in his tool he
will fix it.  He offers also a nice...

Yeah, I may have to do that.  


<http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/xml2rfc-valid/>

...and 01pre5.xml did NOT validate (you can't have -- within a
comment, maybe use -- -- to bypass this error or just get rid
of the comment).
                            Bye, Frank

Huh...  I'll try cleaning that up in -01pre6.  That, and test the
development version of xml2rfc to see if 1.30pre2 fixes the problems
I've been running into.


-wayne