Re: Parsing the Injection-Info: header field

Julien ÉLIE <[email protected]> Sun, 10 Jan 2010 16:10:03 +0100
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.usenet.format
Organization TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
Message-ID <2D103F28D3464F1889E46392A914CF05@Iulius>
Hi Antti-Juhani,

>> I understand that RFC 2045 now extends the syntax of RFC 5322 (instead
>> of RFC 822).
>
> That interpretation would mean that suddenly CFWS beciame forbidden in =
MIME
> constructs when RFC 2822 was published.  I don't think that was the int=
ent,
> especially when "those mechanisms are outside of the scope".

CFWS is not forbidden by RFC 2822/5322.  It just became obsolete syntax:

4. Obsolete Syntax

   Earlier versions of this specification allowed for different (usually
   more liberal) syntax than is allowed in this version.

   [...]

   Though these syntactic
   forms MUST NOT be generated according to the grammar in section 3,
   they MUST be accepted and parsed by a conformant receiver.

   [...]

   One important difference between the obsolete (interpreting) and the
   current (generating) syntax is that in structured header field bodies
   (i.e., between the colon and the CRLF of any structured header
   field), white space characters, including folding white space, and
   comments could be freely inserted between any syntactic tokens.  This
   allowed many complex forms that have proven difficult for some
   implementations to parse.


That's why I find weird that RFC 5536 still encourages an obsolete syntax
(with the posting-host example) that MUST NOT be generated.

I believe the interpretation of the fact that RFC 2045 now extends the
syntax of RFC 5322 is that:

 * for RFC-5322-compliant implementation, RFC 2045 MUST comply with the
   general syntax of RFC 5322;

 * for RFC-822-compliant implementation, RFC 2045 uses the general syntax
   described in RFC 822.


> That paragraph is a bit unfortunately worded, though.

I don't think so.
It is normal that an RFC-5322-compliant article does not use obsolete
syntax.  That's what RFC 5322 mentions:  if MIME is to be used in complia=
nce
with RFC 5322, then the allowed syntax is restricted to the one of RFC 53=
22.


I'm trying to write to the IETF YAM group to ask, but I don't manage to
(the same way I still do not manage to write to the W3C URI group!).

--=20
Julien =C9LIE

=AB Rubor, tumor, dolor, calor et functio laesa. =BB=20