On 19 Sep 2017, at 9:23, Alexey Melnikov wrote:

     optional-field  =/ *( approved /
                           archive /
                           control /
                           distribution /
                           expires /
                           followup-to /
                           injection-date /
                           injection-info /
                           lines /
                           newsgroups /
                           organization /
                           path /
                           summary /
                           supersedes /
                           user-agent /
                           xref )

I see one issue with the above. <optional-field> appears *twice* in the definition of <fields> in 5322. I don't understand what the intent was there - whether it was a mistake or was trying to express something that
I am missing.

I believe it was entirely intentional. The first instance allows to add
new trace header fields (which should be kept together in groups), the
second allows adding other types of header fields.

Correct, that was the intention. In 5322, optional-field is a catchall for any new header field, so you need one for new trace fields and one for other fields. Otherwise, there's no way to put a new field between two trace fields. This was a fix in 5322 from 2822.

This really needs some further discussion. (E.g., should
the valid values for <optional-field> as used with trace be distinct
from those in its later appearance?

Yes. It would have been better to have 2 separate productions, like
trace-optional-field and other-optional-field, but what Pete did seems
to be Ok.

Yes, that might have been nice, but putting extensibility syntax throughout the grammar starts to get ugly. (Imagine resent-optional-field, originator-optional-field, etc.) I think just one is fine.

This needs to be thrashed out with
mail experts before this fix is finalized. I don't know what forum is
appropriate for that.

I am not sure. Pete?

Probably ietf-822, but (a) I personally haven't read the list in a very long time, and (b) I don't think there's anything terribly controversial about the change.

Ignoring that, I agree this change to 5536 would achieve the goal
without requiring a change in 5322, which is progress. However I think a
tweak to the above would be be a bit cleaner:

     optional-field  =/    approved /
                           archive /
                           control /
                           distribution /
                           expires /
                           followup-to /
                           injection-date /
                           injection-info /
                           lines /
                           newsgroups /
                           organization /
                           path /
                           summary /
                           supersedes /
                           user-agent /
                           xref

This is definitely a better fix than I was suggesting. (Thank you Pete!)

Good.

You're very welcome. I am equally fine with Alexey and Julien's version:

     optional-field  = <see RFC 5322 Section 3.6.8>

     news-fields     =     approved /
                           archive /
                           control /
                           distribution /
                           expires /
                           followup-to /
                           injection-date /
                           injection-info /
                           lines /
                           newsgroups /
                           organization /
                           path /
                           summary /
                           supersedes /
                           user-agent /
                           xref

     optional-field  /=    newsfields


pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Reply via email to