Re: [art] Comments on RFC 6068

[Peter Occil <[e-mail]>]

The two sections I made are, rather, largely requests for clarification.  I abridge my previous message to give just those requests:

I. Use of "quoted-string" in mailto URIs

Is "quoted-string" in mailto URIs (after percent decoding) intended to allow whitespace within the quotation marks or the obsolete syntax in the "obs-qp" production?

II. Exact listing of ignored header fields

In the cited text of section 3, exactly which header fields are considered "originator fields"?  What is a "fiel[d] related to routing", exactly?  My previous message gave one interpretation; is that interpretation consistent with the intended scope of those phrases?

--Peter

From: John C Klensin
Sent: Saturday, August 4, 2018 2:57 PM
To: Peter Occil; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [art] Comments on RFC 6068

Peter,

What you appear to be proposing here is not a clarification or
questions about RFC 6068, but a rather extensive revision/
replacement.  Without getting into how I feel about the various
changes you have suggested other than to say that I'm more
enthused about some than others, I don't think you are going to
get a useful discussion of this, much less the sort of evidence
of consensus that would taken it anywhere, when the ideas are
presented in the form of an email message.  Consequently, please
take the next step and prepare an Internet-Draft that either
updates or replaces RFC 6068 and let's see if people want to
engage with that.

In thinking about that, please have a look at RFC 6530ff (the
SMTPUTF8, aka "EAI", specs).  It is not clear to me whether a
6068 revision should be undertaken without addressing non-ASCII
addresses and headers.  If you think it should, you might want
to save time by explaining why in your I-D.

best,
   john