Re: SUMMARY: Limiting msg-id generate syntax

Are we sure that the proposed changes would not require re-cycling RFC2822 at 
Proposed Standard?

d/

Pete Resnick wrote:
> 
> There appears to be a good contingent that is willing to limit the 
> generate syntax for message id's to dot-atoms on the left of the "@" and 
> domain-name- or domain-literal- looking things on the right. This would 
> not change the *interpret* (obs-) syntax which would still require 
> interpreting quoted-strings on the left. So, scream now or forever hold 
> your peace on the following:
> 
> - Define the left hand side of the "@" in msg-id to be (dot-atom-text / 
> ob-id-left)
> - Leave the right hand side of msg-id as it is (dot-atom-text / 
> no-fold-literal / obs-id-right)
> - Leave the text to normatively RECOMMEND (or should it be REQUIRE?) 
> that the right hand side be a domain identifier (either domain name or 
> domain literal)
> 
> I'd prefer to leave the ABNF of domain-literal the way it is and limit 
> in the text. We've already got examples of having to unlimit Received 
> because of bugs in 2822 and so that fixes in 2821bis could be 
> accommodated; I'd rather leave it to other documents to define what it 
> is to be a valid "domain identifier." (Remember, you've got to interpret 
> all of the mess anyway, so the only thing that putting it into the ABNF 
> would do is reinforce the requirement in the text.)
> 
> I'd also be inclined to *not* talk about case-sensitivity and 
> comparisons since nowhere is it discussed in 2822.
> 
> pr

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net