In <KI5AM2.2t0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
I have looked as USEFOR so far, and the RFC-Editor has changed a host of
nits to meet his "house style" and they mostly seem fine.
But there is one big issue, and that is he wants to replace RFC 2822 with
RFC 5322 throughout. That is fine by me, but if we do it for one we need
to do it for both, and in the case of USEFOR it would require a
considerable pruning of the syntax of <msg-id>.
Essentially, the USEFOR syntax is a strict subset of the RFC 2822 syntax,
but NOT of the RFC 5322 syntax. And since the changes of syntax between
2822 and 5322 were made at the express request of us Usenet folk, it would
seem churlish not to adopt them (especially since doing so would remove a
singularly long and ugly set of now unnecessary syntax rules).
Therefore, I propose that we should do that. I will try to produce the
necessary textual changes in the next few days.
OK, I think the issue of whether to rebase the documents on RFC5322 rather
than RFC2822 requires some input from the WG. The Rfc-Editor seems to
think it should be done, and she has provisionally edited both documents
that way. And it it will indeed get us out of various awkward corners
regarding the IANA registrations of the various header fields and other
such editorial confusions, so I personally would support it.
In USEPRO (now RFC5537) it is easily done, but in USEFOR (now RFC5536)
there are some consequential changes that would be needed. Here is what I
have reported to the other editors for their consideration. Some comment
on my proposals from the WG is desirable.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time the USEFOR draft was submitted for Last Call, RFC 2822 was
still current. For severe technical reasons, the syntax of <msg-id> was
totally unsuited to Netnews, hence the cumbersome and ugly syntax you see
in 3.1.3 which contained the minimal change that would work and yet still
allow us to say, in 2.2 (and also in Appendix C):
.... The syntax allowed for Netnews
article headers is a strict subset of the "Internet Message Format"
headers, making all headers compliant with this specification
inherently compliant with [RFC2822]. ...
When the update to RFC 2822 was being discussed, some of us lobbied for
changes to the <msg-id> syntax that would avoid those technical problems
with Netnews and, much to our surprise, we managed to get 95% of what we
wanted. In fact, they went further than we asked, by entirely removing
NO-WS-CTL, <quoted-string>s and <quoted-pair> from <msgid>, which was
fine, except that now Netnews has become, in some parts, a superset of the
new RFC 5322, so the sentence quoted above is no longer true.
Personally, I would be happy to move the whole thing to be based on RFC
5322, but it would require some consequential changes to restore that
'subset' situation. But I think we would need to check back with the WG
before going ahead. Here is what would be needed:
A. RFC 5322 no longer defines <utext>. Instead, it uses VCHAR from RFC
5234, which comprises the old <utext> with all the control characters
(NO-WS-CTL) omitted (and we don't really want those control characters
either). So, in our section 2.2 you would now write:
unstructured = *WSP VCHAR *( [FWS] VCHAR ) *WSP
(which still differs from <unstructured> in RFC 5322 by requiring at least
one visible character). You also need to remove <utext> from 1.4 and add
VCHAR in its place.
B. I see that <date-time> in RFC 5322 has added an extra FWS that was not
there before, but that is compensated by removal of an FWS in <year>, so I
do not think it affects us. Likewise various other shuntings around of FWS
within <date-time>.
C. Section 3.1.3 would need to be written as follows:
3.1.3. Message-ID
The Message-ID header field contains a unique message identifier.
Netnews is more dependent on message identifier uniqueness and fast
comparison than Email is, and some news software and standards
[RFC3977] might have trouble with the full range of possible
<msg-id>s permitted by [RFC5322]. This section therefore restricts
the syntax of <msg-id> as compared to Section 3.6.4 of [RFC5322].
The global uniqueness requirement for <msg-id> in [RFC5322] is to be
understood as applying across all protocols using such message
identifiers, and across both Email and Netnews in particular.
message-id = "Message-ID:" SP *WSP msg-id *WSP CRLF
msg-id = "<" msg-id-core ">"
; maximum length is 250 octets
msg-id-core = id-left "@" id-right
{{EDITORIAL NOTE: Those still remove the possibility of <comment>s; it
also introduces <msg-id-core> which is a useful concept (though I don't
think either document uses it any more).}}
id-left = dot-atom-text
id-right = dot-atom-text / no-fold-literal
{{EDITORIAL NOTE: Those are actually identical to RFC 5322 if you apply
the blanket removal of obs-syntax in 2.1; but it might be kinder to leave
them in.}}
no-fold-literal = "[" *mdtext "]"
mdtext = %d33-61 / ; The rest of the US-ASCII
%d63-90 / ; characters not including
%d94-126 ; ">", "[", "]", or "\"
{{EDITORIAL NOTE: <mdtext> replaces <dtext> from RFC 5322 (or you could
simply redefine <dtext>); the effect is to remove ">".}}
The msg-id MUST NOT be more than 250 octets in length.
NOTE: The length restriction ensures that systems that accept
message identifiers as a parameter when referencing an article
(e.g. [RFC3977]) can rely on a bounded length.
Observe that msg-id includes the < and >.
Observe also that in contrast to the corresponding header field in
[RFC5322]:
o The syntax does not allow comments within the Message-ID header
field,
o There is no possibility for ">" to occur inside a <msg-id>.
{{EDITORIAL NOTE: I have removed the bullet about <id-rights>s now being
case-sensitive because I cannot see that they ever were so even in RFC
2822, and if they were then we have done nothing to change that.}}
This is to simplify processing by news servers and to ensure
interoperability with existing implementations and compliance with
[RFC3977]. Moreover, a simple comparison of octets will always suffice
to determine the identity of two <msg-id>s.
{{EDITORIAL NOTE: I think that last sentence is now also true of RFC 5322,
but it is still useful to emphasise it.}}
Also note that this updated ABNF applies wherever <msg-id> is used,
including the References header field discussed in Section 3.2.10 and
the Supersedes header field discussed in Section 3.2.12.
Some current software may try to match the <id-right> of a <msg-id> in
a case-insensitive fashion; some may match it in a case-sensitive
fashion. Implementations MUST NOT generate a Message-ID where the only
difference from another Message-ID is the case of characters in the
<id-right> part.
When generating a <msg-id>, implementations SHOULD use a domain name
as the <id-right>.
NOTE: Section 3.6.4 of [RFC5322] recommends that the <id-right>
should be a domain name or a domain literal. Domain literals are
troublesome since many IP addresses are not globally unique;
domain names are more likely to generate unique Message-IDs.
Comparison of all that with the present text will show that it is
considerably shorter, and much easier to understand.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------