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

["Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <200507011851.31056.blilly@xxxxxxxxx> Bruce Lilly <blilly@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

>On Fri July 1 2005 15:50, Charles Lindsey wrote:
>> 
>> In <200506301058.13924.blilly@xxxxxxxxx> Bruce Lilly <blilly@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

>> >The ABNF implies that
>> >  Path: MISMATCH!tail-entry
>> >and
>> >  Path: MISMATCH!MISMATCH!tail-entry
>> >are legal, which I believe is not the intended use of the keywords.
>> 
>> The procedures for constructing a Path entry are contained in my suggested
>> USEPRO text posted here a week or so ago. It makes it clear exactly where
>> and when those two keywords may appear, so it is hardly necessary to
>> complicate the syntax with such matters (and there is no particular need
>> for agents to take note of those keywords when parsing).

>We *could* simply say
> path = "Path: " *text CRLF
>but that would hardly provide clarity about what is in the field.

Indeed, but all what a relaying agent needs (and has time) to do is to
identify the <path-delimiter>s and the <path-identity>s, so that it can
determine whether it is about to send to a site whose <path-identity> is
already listed. So that is all that the ABNF needs to cover.

All the rest is adequately described by the text which tells you how/when
to insert POSTED/MISMATCH, etc. If you ignore that text and put those
keywords in places where they should not be, then relaying agents won't
care, though humans might well be confused.

-- 
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