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

[Bruce Lilly <blilly@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu June 30 2005 20:51, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> 
> Bruce Lilly wrote:
> > doesn't address (no pun intended) where IP address literals
> > are or are not allowed.
> 
> It was based on Charles' revised syntax for a <path-identity>:
> 
> | path-identity = ( ALPHA / DIGIT )
> |                 *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" ) /
> |                 IPv4address / IPv6address    ; see [RFC 3986]

That's inconsistent with Harald's "diagnostic stuff".

> > 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.
> 
> Then it was wrong, "!MISMATCH!" is the same idea as "!!", only
> for a mismatch.  In my hardcore nitpicking mode it should be:

I guess it's up to somebody who cares for the newfangled "feature"
to open a ticket proposing a specific text change...
 
> path-identity "!" path-identity "!MISMATCH!" path-list
> 
> a!b!MISMATHCH!c!...!not-for-mail as in "I got this starting
> with c!... but I think it should be b, anyway I am a, enjoy".
> 
> Or should this be a!!b!MISMATCH!c!...!not-for-mail (?)  Bye.

Good question; sounds reasonable to me.  Anyway, I'm waiting  for
resolution of the issues before ABNF-wrangling.