[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: msg-id
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> And RFC 2373 is different Yet Again :-( .
Yes, and I must admit that I know almost nothing about IPv6,
but the format of IPv6 address literals isn't too difficult,
nothing like say UTF-8 minus surrogates. ;-)
Trying to find the new (2004) RfC about IPv6 example addresses
I stumbled over RfC 3513, it obsoleted 2373, but the chapter
<http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3513.html#sec-2.2> is still
the same.
>> IPv9:]\[ is no address literal.
> 1. It's allowed in RFC 2822
> 2. It's allowed in RFC 2821 (if registered with IANA)
> 3. It's allowed in NNTP
> 4. It's ugly
4 - It's not only ugly, it's plain nonsense, and definitely no
IPv6 or even IPv4.
3 - NNTP doesn't "allow" it, they simply don't care, because
it's none of their business to define address literals, as
long as the result pa[rs]ses as NNTP Message-ID
1 - dito, 2822 only wants to reach the closing ">" without any
syntax error, and they did it in a way that's incompatible
with NNTP.
2 - 2821 also doesn't care, the IANA registry for address tags
doesn't exist or rather I don't find it on the IANA pages.
Is something like [IPv6:2001:DB8::] really okay in SMTP ?
IPv6 URLs simply use [3ffe:2a00:100:7031::1] without tag,
see RfC 2732 (some months older than RfC 2821).
> Ruling awaited from the Chair.
It's hard for Alexej to decide the address literal issue while
we are (or at least I am) still unsure about the _real_ format,
with or without tag. You said that you found something in an
old draft with hex. digits, and that was probably the format in
RfCs 2373 (now 3513) and 2732. Maybe RfC 2821 got it wrong (?)
>> your mdtext enumerates %d33-61 etc., but ">" is %d34, and
>> the comment says 'no ">"'.
> Eh? ">" is %d62. %d34 is <DQUOTE>.
Sorry. One more reason to use enumerations based on atext - I
simply don't know all ASCII decimal codes by heart. ;-) You
must of course use the %d-style for odd cases like "poster".
Okay, mdtext includes DQUOTE, because you want <unique@["?~*"]>
to be a "valid" Message-ID for the system with IPv? "?~*" in
the future IANA registered IPv?, or isn't that just nonsense ?
Bye, Frank