[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: New 2822upd-04 - obs-NO-WS-CTL
Pete Resnick wrote:
> Try this instead:
Thanks. As soon as an I-D is available on the Tools server
the "diff" links in the HTML output can compare N+1 and N.
> If you want the comparison to 2822 itself, try this:
For now I consider -03 as "known good", and try to figure
out if -04 is "better". Points as I see them (top down):
<ctext> is supposed to be VCHAR minus "(", ")", and "\",
the syntax says decimal 33..39 and 93..126. Please add
<quoted-pair> in <dcontent>, compare Charles' and Ned's
comments. As far as this allows for \[, \\, and \] in a
<domain-literal> I'm not aware of any case (incl. MIXER)
where this is needed. If this allows any <quoted-pair>,
because that's as it was in RFC 2822 I'm curious what an
"interop" report will say (good, bad, or ugly). Outside
of a Message-ID I'm not very hot about it.
<obs-dtext> is harmful, there are no domain literals with
NO-WS-CTL, please kill this obscenity or show me where it
* 3.5, 3.6.2, 3.6.3, 3.6.5
Missing blank lines between prose and syntax. I never
got that effect with xml2rfc, your figure-artwork-ABNF
magic must be different from what I use.
"Though optional, every message SHOULD" [...]. Please
remove "though optional", an unqualified SHOULD already
takes care of obsolete implementations.
Why are In-Reply-To and References simultaneously
recommended (SHOULD), how about limiting the In-Reply-To
SHOULD to messages without References ? Nothing's wrong
if a message has only References, or is it ?
| later in this section, the use of a domain name or
| literal Internet address is RECOMMENDED for the [RHS]
"Recommending" a domain literal is not what RFC 822 did:
THE USE OF DOMAIN-LITERALS IS STRONGLY DISCOURAGED.
At least for a Message-ID a domain literal can be a bad
idea, IMO it's a last resort before trying random garbage.
For <no-fold-literal> see above, no <quoted-pair>, please.
<obs-id-right> points back to <domain>, that forward to
<obs-domain>, back to dot-separated <atom>s with <CFWS>,
shudder. But you got rid of obs-NO-WS-CTL in <dcontent>,
good. Maybe move <obs-id-right> from 4.5.4 to 4.4, ditto
<obs-id-left>, historically that's where they belong to.
[I ignore further missing empty lines between prose + ABNF]
* 3.6.8 (matter of taste)
You could now write 'VCHAR excl. ":"' in the <ftext>
comment, or 'printable US-ASCII excluding ":"' similar
to what you have for <qtext>. It's not more necessary
to mention that <ftext> can't contain SP and control.
<obs-NO-WS-CTL> also doesn't include NUL, fortunately.
How about dropping the obs- prefix from obs-NO-WS-CTL ?
It's anyway not used outside of the the obs-chapter 4.
Oops, 4234bis "forgot" to define NUL forcing you to say
%d0. But 4234bis mentions NUL in a comment. Maybe NUL
could be still added in AUTH48 to 4234bis (?)
<obs-qp> boils down to "CTL minus HTAB", maybe note it
as ABNF comment. The full syntax is necessarily clumsy.
You got rid of <obs-text>, now that surprises me. It
was used in <text>, indirectly <quoted-pair> (killed),
indirectly <body> (???), and <obs-utext>.
The bare CR or bare LF magic went from <obs-utext> to
<obs-unstruct>, that should be okay. But <VCHAR> in
<obs-utext> is wrong, it's covered by <unstructured>.
I think you have lost NO-WS-CTL in <obs-body>, I fear
you need it, as soon as you have NUL anything goes :-(
| Semantically, none of the optional CFWS surrounding the
| local-part and the domain are part of the obs-id-left
| and obs-id-right respectively.
Ditto CFWS within <obs-domain>, see comment for 3.6.4.
Thanks, great progress wrt NO-WS-TL. And yes, I think
that the NetNews "magic SP" should be limited to NetNews.