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

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Sun, 24 March 2013 12:43 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@kitterman.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 5125721F89EE for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 05:43:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 boFLUQWUAkFr for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 05:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AAC121F8938 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 05:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06CBA20E40D2; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:43:13 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1364128993; bh=auHOWzV76w3Fclm4gzmNHMTYIlijyYvYMRhVds2/frA=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=j4onAUFmaweOzV+7EnBr/LrvRWMSfdn5Y+XZgFhFs98YC5uj+jTLZMb26DjhZehsc leLv3ETpGLjy2hBgK8AiI/he3lEqLQJ6vUljCg/R3Hc9jd3TxjWzq7q7gDG7k3mi2U iloEW50GqReY8As3LW67ulgu3wtM552/5eymoMhE=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DF93620E40C7; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:43:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:43:11 -0400
Message-ID: <5103174.tJ3nsKeqxz@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.9.5 (Linux/3.5.0-26-generic; KDE/4.9.5; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <514EEBB7.40205@tana.it>
References: <CAL0qLwbgjnt8Msofok3ExKBmChtQPfMEFgrrZBimEzU5CYgSjA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwbqNUbPOYbXQEzM6X4=RLiqCQG2TbsO9A8PaE+a3Z3oNQ@mail.gmail.com> <514EEBB7.40205@tana.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
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: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 12:43:15 -0000

I tried out "auth"="pass" and my implementation chokes on it.  I'd strongly 
prefer not to have to change it and having a single canonical form is 
definitely better.  So my answer to Alessandro's question about how many 
parsers would have to be updated is "at least one".

Scott K

On Sunday, March 24, 2013 01:04:07 PM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> There's nothing intrinsically wrong with "value", albeit it is sometimes
> a nuisance not to have a canonical form.  The point is how many A-R
> parsers will need to be updated to comply with it, since "dot-atom"
> didn't admit quotes.
> 
> Another point is about extensions.  I proposed "Keyword" because it
> matches all the registered methods, and thus looks like what may seem to
> be the spirit of the spec.  If 5451bis will say "value", then the
> appointed expert will have no reason to oppose methods with long names
> and properties, comprising spaces and punctuation like some sort of
> filenames which require composition assistance in order to be spelled
> correctly.  Is that what we want?
> 
> On Sat 23/Mar/2013 21:31:22 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > 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
> > 
> > <mailto: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 <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
> >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > apps-discuss mailing list
> > apps-discuss@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss