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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Sat, 23 March 2013 20:31 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
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 0146021F8C93 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:31:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.333, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 00g15YM8aMDT for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f54.google.com (mail-wg0-f54.google.com [74.125.82.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5621021F8576 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f54.google.com with SMTP id fm10so1108630wgb.21 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Vtb5dJGNMomQr9JBqNnv8dIlvx4ZolowLET786i/mlY=; b=lRx7AMxkc+qt/NnH1W3+dr/ACRHkg3KFbvONVy/hgkXJ2vC/jeFgvIeGLvYVD5Sd6W bSJEUu1mIP93mauiy1fExyDsvGA/h2pOo9H4nRClkdbOWRVG1MU0z1QQ/G3lOJ/hOloa iszp1OCgVHqKeBSoM046pr2a+eeCS03LB2nL0Xmdfl+Czm03GW4jQJ5B0s8ljnCiLy3v ClwS37KqeXvXHVmtRI9OhMU6t9lRsAplmM/SoJRrFIOI57Lwhc7p/1OkHty9cZAdfesx F/Gg5dzp6EAt2ru2xjFRqHrwMv4GFoT10HelzLPSTSW7Ng8f0mpPTrNrcQKJi3fdLYoe VfkA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.178.9 with SMTP id cu9mr9984891wjc.39.1364070682597; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.13.71 with HTTP; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <514DFAC8.7040406@tana.it>
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> <514DFAC8.7040406@tana.it>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:31:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwbqNUbPOYbXQEzM6X4=RLiqCQG2TbsO9A8PaE+a3Z3oNQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d1f287c20b004d89d745d
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
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 20:31:25 -0000

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 <vesely@tana.it> 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
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>