Re: #1047 Path-identity: A proposal (perhaps)

[Bruce Lilly <blilly@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu June 30 2005 17:44, Frank Ellermann wrote:

> Some of Bruce's points are not yet covered, MISMATCH!MISMATCH
> etc., maybe we have to declare these beasts as special cases
> of a path-delimiter, brain-storming:
> 
> 
>  path-list = [FWS] path-identity 
>              *( path-delimiter [FWS] path-identity [FWS] )
>              path-delimiter tail-entry [FWS]
> 
>  path-delimiter = "!" / "!!" / "!MISMATCH!" / "!POSTED!"
> 
> No more path-keyword.  Does that solve Bruce's problem ?  Bye

That still permits foo!!tail-entry, foo!MISMATCH!tail-entry, and
doesn't address (no pun intended) where IP address literals are or
are not allowed.

I made some quick notes this morning:
path-identity "!POSTED" needs to be a group
path-identity "!!" path-identity needs to be a group
"MISMATCH!" path-identity needs to be a group 
based on the text description following the ABNF in the usefor draft.
That text (and the draft ABNF) implies that
  Path: MISMATCH!example.net!tail-entry
is a valid complete field, which might not be what is intended; the
text doesn't say that there needs to be anything to the left of
MISMATCH.