IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Question about mailto URI

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Fri, 19 February 2016 18:42 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A5891A1F1D for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:42:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.007
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.007 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wiphyEKPulTf for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:42:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from statler.isode.com (Statler.isode.com [62.232.206.189]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D50A1A1B96 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:42:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1455907328; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=MhA/vVIE6qvVx+ThfJWnb0VwmxwzxLgo3jTNdWF9+OM=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=hcO7vGJlbepSGgsGXAP4Xo+ksyhqFZlkryjh9m5i0c/7cgE9q3INT15vA4RYnXlDGVo6US 2W2mstgsF00m5zZDMF4YMoirYgGl85zHdkR8bE7DZNBBAxOx0OgIBJzpfU+vmxN0WuA+8a 7KncsYlvCgk/Ac4VWT5E4GwcyZIdzh0=;
Received: from [172.20.1.215] (dhcp-215.isode.net [172.20.1.215]) by statler.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <VsdiAABBxym-@statler.isode.com>; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 18:42:08 +0000
To: Stephan Bosch <stephan@rename-it.nl>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
References: <56BFD23A.9010601@rename-it.nl>
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Message-ID: <56C761EC.1000304@isode.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 18:41:48 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
In-Reply-To: <56BFD23A.9010601@rename-it.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/kEkJmDt8qeqBfVZ4_tah7UAhWVQ>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Question about mailto URI
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 18:42:11 -0000

Hi Stephan,

On 14/02/2016 01:02, Stephan Bosch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a question about the mailto URI specified in RFC 6068. The following syntax is specified for header fields:
>
> hfields      = "?" hfield *( "&" hfield )
> hfield       = hfname "=" hfvalue
> hfname       = *qchar
> hfvalue      = *qchar
>
> This syntax allows an empty header field name, whereas RFC 5322 specifies the following:
>
> optional-field  =   field-name ":" unstructured CRLF
> field-name      =   1*ftext
> ftext           =   %d33-57 / %d59-126
>
> This doesn't allow empty header field names, which makes sense to me.
>
> Is there a reason to allow an empty header field name for the mailto URI, or am I just looking at something that warrants an erratum for the RFC?
I don't know of any reason to allow for empty header field names. 
Although at this point implementations should just ignore empty fields.

Best Regards,
Alexey

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email