IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Pete Resnick's Yes on draft-ietf-appsawg-malformed-mail-10: (with COMMENT)

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Sun, 01 December 2013 04:31 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E1071AE2D8; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 20:31:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 zbl70JAlh3nr; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 20:31:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-x236.google.com (mail-we0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFEF61AE08F; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 20:31:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f182.google.com with SMTP id q59so10839410wes.27 for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 20:31:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=0LJRC3fVwQyL7wzk54RKgzHr0pXTuHtHrfKs5BJJV9Y=; b=paxnhAUbkoAaeT6NLDwcNZzWxVyYVqJTqXVpx7BoeQmtZINkPltN/HCWigxAk9qnFX nBGiQGdPGriciknjIdsMYZuGwCnG3IJY3Ag79qH1jqJSQ/I9sUEuPAP+DAhKnWxgyefM cvsYM4/TOYoH3JmZibPnQV6hhAu/hASRrXXkQYMBcStm4FNwpF81iv4VO5EZLn6Ee4Df z5UZsxpJ1cQcDkCwYa2x2II6Fkt1Fcm6SKpZHc6sbj0lowiGMH5ZBS4w+uMLaXsJIGPJ +0rLPfYceRm97wkbF8IhJypeg7YGx0VYSj1Zay1JlubWmW0zKJB9c6VGMNf7fveueCFn XuCQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.182.136 with SMTP id ee8mr12923469wic.19.1385872283681; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 20:31:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.181.13.230 with HTTP; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 20:31:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <01P1CS3LR0X000004G@mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <20131120223533.8958.23858.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAL0qLwbH0e_Z-9OKNf3cJ9RpsRLK6vmnQtfj8dbZkLxmz2GaRA@mail.gmail.com> <01P14CWFCE5A00004G@mauve.mrochek.com> <5294DDEE.4070000@qti.qualcomm.com> <CAL0qLwY4Zbig3pb9W41fo5ttt2FgLPyOwPxLFQFJuUTtO5D75A@mail.gmail.com> <529613CD.8060307@qti.qualcomm.com> <01P1CS3LR0X000004G@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 20:31:23 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwZbN+ReEg9pTmqxFwP6pRK8-oJpWfEdfgvXAYWCwF5o7g@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e016346b42c47db04ec718927"
Cc: "draft-ietf-appsawg-malformed-mail@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-appsawg-malformed-mail@tools.ietf.org>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, SM <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, "appsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <appsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Pete Resnick's Yes on draft-ietf-appsawg-malformed-mail-10: (with COMMENT)
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: <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, 01 Dec 2013 04:31:28 -0000

Concur.  I'll send that out momentarily to you guys and, if no objections,
I'll send it to the RFC Editor to replace -11.

-MSK


On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> wrote:

> Everything in the diff you sent looks great. Just one outstanding bit:
>>
>
>  On 11/26/13 12:23 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> >
>> >                 7.5 -
>> >                 What's the difference between 3&  4? Or maybe I don't
>> >                 know what "compound
>> >                 instance" means in 3.
>> >
>> >
>> >     You never did answer that question.
>> >
>> >
>> > I thought I clarified that in the latest draft by explaining what was
>> > meant by "compound instance".
>>
>
>  Could you give me an example of 3 (a compound instance) which is not a 4?
>>
>
> I don't know of any in RFC 5322, but I've seen content-disposition
> information
> scattered across multiple instances of the header. But not often enough to
> bother coding any kind of support to handle it.
>
> That said, "3 but not 4" would appear to be sufficiently obscure that I
> have no
> problem with combining them.
>
>                                 Ned
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email