Re: msg-id

["Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <41CB349D.3C0B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Frank Ellermann <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>Charles Lindsey wrote:

>>>| mdomain          = dot-atom-text / ("[" address-literal "]")
>>>| address-mliteral = 1*( atext / "." / ":" )   ; see RfC 2821

>> Yes, that is the only bit of RFC 2821 I had in mind to adopt.
>> Indeed, Dan Kohn's original draft (and the usefor-draft-01)
>> had that, but it was taken out because the WG had never agreed

>Sorry, anything before 07 is far outside my radar, do you
>recall the specific arguments against it ?  Was it the simple
>form shown above, an enumeration of legal characters with a
>pointer to one relevant RfC, or was it a complete copy of the
>syntax ?

Actually, looking at RFC 2821, I see that it tried to give a syntax for
<IPv4-address-literal>, <IPv6-address-literal> and
<General-address-literal>, involving <Standardized-tag>s such as "IPv6" or
whatever else IANA might specify. It used the syntactic elememt
<dcontent> from RFC 2822, and hence it allowed most things allowable in
the current <id-right>. Dan Kohn, now I look more closely, had a different
allowance of HEXDIG, ",". ":" and <quoted-pair>s, different from anything
else seen anywhere else, so forget it.

The whole thing looks such a mess that I cannot now see any reason for
departing further than needed from RFC 2822 as regards the id-right.

Certainly, adopting <address-literal> from RFC 2821 does not help us,
because it too contains quoted-pairs, which would have to be canonicalized
in our version, as is done already in our version of <id-right>.

>> if our Chair is willing to allow it ...

>Alexej said that a Message-ID compatible with NNTP is okay,
>this covers no NO-WS-CTL and some auto-canonical "unique"
>instead of the 2822 id-left.

Alexey has not really made any pronouncement yet. I am waiting for him to
do so, and also for Russ to comment on the NNTP definition which disallows
NO-WS-CTL. And yes, I now see that NO-WS-CTL also appears in <id-right>.

I am coming to the conclusion that we should just omit NO-WS-CTL from our
versions if <id-left> and <id-right>, and leave it at that.


> [unique]
>> But that looks exactly the same as my current <id-left>. Was
>> there supposed to be some difference?


>One small difference is anything starting or ending with a dot.
>That's not covered by dot-atom-text.  And anything with ".."
>(two or more dots) for the same reasons.

If an <id-left> starts or ends with a ".", then it is not allowed under
RFC 2822, and hence we cannot allow it either.

>Your mqspecial contains "." (single dot), and that's not good
>enough for a "must-quote", the "." is also in dot-atom-text.

Aaaaghhh! Yes! That is indeed a bug in my syntax.

>My unique-literal has ".." instead of your mqspecial ".", the
>rest is identical.

OK, I shall look at your latest syntax.

-- 
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