[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issues outstanding
In <41C899E0.5AA3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Frank Ellermann <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>> other major issues for the USEFOR document that I've missed?
>Define a Message-ID compatible with NNTP, get rid of NO-WS-CTL.
>Maybe replace "id-right" by "mdomain", because that's the idea:
>"domain" is already defined in 2822 and not what we want, and
>we also can't use the 2822 "id-right" as is. Simple proposal:
>| msg-id-core = "<" unique "@" mdomain ">"
>| mdomain = dot-atom-text / ( "[" dot-atom-text "]" )
That is indeed a subset of RFC 2822, but if you are going to restrict what
is allowed in a no-fold-literal, then you may as well go the whole hog and
adopt the RFC 2821 restriction (i.e. to an ipv4 or ipv6 address).
>| unique = 1*( unique-qtext )
>| unique-text = %d33 / %d35-61 / ; no WSP, no DQUOTE
>| %d63 / %d65-91 / ; no ">", no "@"
>| %d93-127 ; no "\", no CTL
But that is not a subset of RFC 2822, and could not therefore be accepted.
For example, you have allowed <[foo]@example.com>, which is not allowed by
RFC 2822.
If our Chair is willing to permit any further restrictions on the
message-id format, then something along the lines you suggest might be in
order, but please bear in mind that we shall want to sell back whatever we
decide to the next revision of RFC 2822, and the more we change the
harder that will be.
The only strong argument we have at the moment is the incompatibility with
the current NNTP draft (and I an waiting to hear Russ's views on that).
There might be some mileage to be gained from that, at least so as to
remove the NO-WS-CTL.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5