IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] draft-kucherawy-rfc5451bis

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sat, 23 March 2013 18:56 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B82AB21F8BED for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 11:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zxRH5qU3SjCH for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 11:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (mail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ACB021F8BF8 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 11:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=beta; t=1364064968; bh=U5PxJnCVX9M5KEk2NgjFYYQj8ears3XgPVx8RhzXbUs=; l=803; h=Date:From:To:References:In-Reply-To; b=K1FPOW/NS/xOdVtEw+ijzhRN1EcfX1jXjgO+5PFQlclvobWq7PoGY/L9YuQ8AnQYg TlaykfARsihMXQBujlow9jOztgzBoT2+sx6TKhiaDEabZ0egBqW4n/j7WyIIvvLyBp oxpIxy2Zlbelg8MHdLhK2UfCBQWmGAX2UH/sTfz0=
Received: from [10.57.167.222] (93-32-180-247.ip34.fastwebnet.it [93.32.180.247]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 19:56:08 +0100 id 00000000005DC039.00000000514DFAC8.00007DB7
Message-ID: <514DFAC8.7040406@tana.it>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 19:56:08 +0100
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130221 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
References: <CAL0qLwbgjnt8Msofok3ExKBmChtQPfMEFgrrZBimEzU5CYgSjA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKHUCzxfBtLTt3p3moGgEQx+p5kr=-e2Mn58xaqNvWFGiW=Lpw@mail.gmail.com> <514432BC.1010805@tana.it> <51443483.9030805@tana.it> <CAKHUCzwBrEPSVc4VtJMKZLm+5it3h7dLiW+YZ=_xO2OwP_rLoA@mail.gmail.com> <51458A59.8040206@tana.it> <CAL0qLwYEe9Wmvr-+eZL_yqChRf+a+11zRXCmW2Md9PGvH9PK-g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwYEe9Wmvr-+eZL_yqChRf+a+11zRXCmW2Md9PGvH9PK-g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] draft-kucherawy-rfc5451bis
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 18:56:12 -0000

 On Fri 22/Mar/2013 20:22:43 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> I've revised the grammar in the next draft to avoid this ambiguity.  Let
> me know if it works.  Essentially, "dot-atom" has been replaced by
> "value", which disallows the case you've illustrated here.

Hm... that way it becomes possible to have "dkim"="pass".  I'd beg for
"token", which is somewhat simpler, but it allows dots.  Wouldn't it be
possible to have a grammar that matches the actual use?  I mean, e.g.:

authserv-id = domain-name
     method = Keyword [ [CFWS] "/" [CFWS] version ]
     result = Keyword
   property = Keyword

"Keyword" is defined in RFC 5321, as well as "domain-name".  (It seems
to be useless to recall the definition from RFC 6376, as the domain
literal alternative that was in RFC 2821 has gone away.)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email