Re: [Anima] rfc822Name use in Autonomic Control Plane document

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 24-Jun-20 15:08, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 07:44:12PM -0700, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>>>> We already had this debate.

....
> 
> "violates the rules set down by the specification for the technology"
> 
> ??
> 
> I have not seen any supporting evidence for that. the rfc822name is
> a perfect rfc822name formatted string.

Well, more than that. It's a perfectly valid email address, accepted by conformant SMTP servers.

Yes, it does lead to a delivery failure, but it doesn't just *look like* an email address, it *is* an email address. Why is it misuse of rfc822name to express a valid email address that has no mailbox behind it? Is this in any way a security vulnerability? What does it break?

I still don't see how this qualifies as a DISCUSS issue. I do see that it is unaesthetic. I do see how it meets several of the DISCUSS non-criteria at https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/iesg-discuss-criteria/#stand-undisc

   Brian

--- Begin Message ---

** Address not found **

Your message wasn't delivered to [e-mail] because the domain acp.example.com couldn't be found. Check for typos or unnecessary spaces and try again.



The response was:

DNS Error: 111832 DNS type 'mx' lookup of acp.example.com responded with code NXDOMAIN
Domain name not found: acp.example.com

--- Begin Message ---

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 24-Jun-20 03:46, Stephen Kent wrote:
> Owen,
>>
>> Being completely pedantic about the RFC5280 text, nowhere in the text does it say that rfc822name cannot be used for anything but email address. It does state multiple times that an email address must be represented as an rfc822name, but places no explicit restrictions on what an rfc822name may represent. The text as is does not explicitly preclude use of rfc822name for ACP. This may be the widespread understanding of what RFC5280 means, but its not strictly what it says…
>>
> Common sense argues against putting something other than an e-mail address in the rfc822namem attribute.
> 
> I expect ADs to use common sense, as well as careful reading of prior RFCs, when making decisions.

Indeed, but that cuts both ways, since running code is our goal. No parser is in a position to say that [e-mail] isn't an email address.

   Brian

> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
> 

--- End Message ---

--- End Message ---