Re: [dmarc-ietf] Errors in RFC 8601, was Question about changes introduced by erratum

Damian Lukowski <rfc@arcsin.de> Sun, 22 March 2020 20:12 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc@arcsin.de>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11C333A03F5 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 13:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=arcsin.de
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 qitcRMFr6TwR for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 13:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scalar.arcsin.de (scalar.arcsin.de [185.162.250.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD8F53A02BD for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 13:12:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=arcsin.de; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-language:content-type :content-type:in-reply-to:mime-version:date:date:message-id:from :from:references:subject:subject:x-amavis-category; s=dkim01; t= 1584907930; x=1586722331; bh=GtyIvhuNvfNbuy+BaoMQmlXXLSCZ/btf84q Zw3Y5NYs=; b=BI+kYyVSQ0kojNdW6PLvV/RsndDDQ3B3M1gQZdsk5jklWkBz/eZ h6Vnsuf28vtdGSLXPNVol9WB4T/mcMYuzKO/m7v3gsZJEF4YqPUj8Cb1MbNsAqHC cBWjHpzkzQNSmoKKGkPhJxgrtDpAe2TJMZV8rJymwo83FCd173IQ5X/I=
X-Amavis-Category: scalar.arcsin.de; category=CleanTag
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20200322154438.14E02166129A@ary.qy> <09ec8dda-7165-fae8-f8e1-f88561085e47@arcsin.de> <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2003221534100.16773@ary.qy>
From: Damian Lukowski <rfc@arcsin.de>
Message-ID: <59f7d02b-e15c-25e4-2955-ea44615886e3@arcsin.de>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 21:12:37 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2003221534100.16773@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/LTNHdsOtP5Wd44-NcWIewcs2LQM>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Errors in RFC 8601, was Question about changes introduced by erratum
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 20:12:17 -0000

> No, see RFC 2821 or 5321 sec 3.3.  The reverse-path is what's between
> the brackets, which means it's a mailbox or it's empty.

Ok, I guess I didn't expect to have to go through a layer of english
while assembling a grammar from different sources, given that there was
an ABNF rule with a matching name.

Regards
 Damian