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

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

I'm not in favour of changing to a grammar that matches current use to the
exclusion of other uses without a good reason to do so.  Since in the prose
we talk about authserv-id being a domain name in the typical case but
basically also say it could be anything the operator wants to use, I think
"value" is the right thing there.  We also shouldn't be making changes that
aren't either improvements to the prose or bug fixes to the normative parts.

Keyword is probably fine for the other three you mentioned.  I'll make that
change.  This is obviously a bug fix since, as you pointed out, "dot-atom"
permits ambiguous productions.

-MSK



On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[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  Essentially, "dot-atom" has been replaced by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] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > apps-discuss mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
> >
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>