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