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

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

What would be wrong with "dkim"="pass"?

The main difference between "token" and "value" is that the latter permits
quoted strings.  I couldn't think of a good reason to proscribe those, and
it's not like it makes parsing any more difficult; things that can parse
"value" have been around for years.

-MSK


On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  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  Essentially, "dot-atom" has been replaced by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.)
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>