Re: 2822upd-06 submitted

On 2/4/08 at 7:38 AM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:

>RFC 821 uses the syntax:
>
>| <a-d-l> ::= <at-domain> | <at-domain> "," <a-d-l>
>| <at-domain> ::= " <at> " <domain>

Which flatly disagreed with 822 on this point:

      route       =  1#(" <at> " domain) ":"           ; path-relative

      2.7.  #RULE:  LISTS

           A construct "#" is defined, similar to "*", as follows:

                               <l>#<m>element

      indicating at least <l> and at most <m> elements, each  separated
      by  one  or more commas (","). This makes the usual form of lists
      very easy; a rule such as '(element *("," element))' can be shown
      as  "1#element".   Wherever this construct is used, null elements
      are allowed, but do not  contribute  to  the  count  of  elements
      present.   That  is,  "(element),,(element)"  is  permitted,  but
      counts as only two elements.  Therefore, where at least one  ele-
      ment  is required, at least one non-null element must be present.
      Default values are 0 and infinity so that "#(element)" allows any
      number,  including  zero;  "1#element" requires at least one; and
      "1#2element" allows one or two.

And remember, it was always the case that things which generated 821 
commands from 822 headers had to do all sorts of normalization. This 
one is no different.

>Why do 2822 and 2822upd keep the...

Only in the obs- syntax because you still need to parse these things.

>---- 2: Routes SHOULD be ignored
>
>>When interpreting addresses, the route portion SHOULD be ignored.
>
>That statement in isolation *after* the syntax is odd, why not add 
>it to the prose before the ABNF?

Because the text before the ABNF is always about syntax and the text 
after the ABNF is always about semantics. See 3.1.

>---- 3: <obs-group-list>
>
>That's a kind of <obs-mbox-list> without <mailbox>, but at least one 
>comma.  Anything else is covered elsewhere. Rather obscure, how 
>about renaming it, <obs-empty-list> ?

Because its only reason for existing is the obsolete form of group lists.

>You could use <obs-empty-list> three times, where you have it as 
><obs-group-list>, and to simplify <obs-bcc>

(*Shrug*) I just can't get excited about this one. I think it's clear 
enough. If there are others who think a de-reference would be better, 
I'll go back and take a look.

>Why do 2822 and 2822upd keep the RFC 822 <obs-NO-WS-CTL> in 
><obs-dtext>, when it was never allowed in (2)821(bis) ?

I'm staying out of this one. Convince enough others, I will change 
it. Don't, I won't.

>- period character is currently used in many messages in
>- the display-name portion of addresses
>+ period character is sometimes erroneously used in
>+ messages in the display-name portion of addresses

Again, I can't get excited about this. We're already in the obs- 
syntax, where it's perfectly clear that none of these things are 
correct to generate. Seems redundant. Unless others think it's 
unclear, I'll leave it.

>---- Last Call now ?

Tony? I'm all for it.

pr
--

-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102