Re: SUMMARY: Limiting msg-id generate syntax

Dave Crocker writes:
> Are we sure that the proposed changes would not require re-cycling 
> RFC2822 at Proposed Standard?

Hm. I reread 1602 now and can't find any text saying that 
standards-track progression should drop unused features. Isn't there 
any?

> 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)

+1

I tend towards RECOMMEND. In a sample of 750,000 recent message-ids I 
found about 99.1% compliance, which is SHOULD-land IMO.

>> 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.)

No opinion.

>> I'd also be inclined to *not* talk about case-sensitivity and 
>> comparisons since nowhere is it discussed in 2822.

Agree. I can't even think of a way to count what the running code does.

Arnt