spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: idnits

2005-05-12 15:30:51
wayne wrote:

 [Kucherawy review]
Interesting reading.

Indeed.  It needed the combined power of two IESG members,
plus Keith Moore and Ned Freed, to overrule Bruce, and
just to be sure that it sticks the IETF Chair posted on
the IETF announce list that ABNF is 2234bis:

<http://mid.gmane.org/E1DWIdy-0004gS-Ug(_at_)newodin(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org>

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.

I haven't checked it, but I think Meng got it right.  And
header fields don't necessarily arrive in a chronological
order, a MUST would only offer another opportunity for an
attack.  Actually that's one of the reasons against PRA.

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

Scott said "don't use this" proposing Bill's checker in LTRU:

<http://mid.gmane.org/046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF0749C889(_at_)dul1wnexmb01(_dot_)vcorp(_dot_)ad(_dot_)vrsn(_dot_)com>

I liked the longer comments on each terms, so I left them
the way they were.

Maybe just add "; " (semicolon space) in front of these beasts.

                     Bye, Frank