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

John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 22 March 2020 21:13 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
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 C5A3A3A0857 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 14:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=LXsPRgC8; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=drWAiEHz
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 TKeSpXIg7lig for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 14:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D125A3A0855 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 14:13:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 21792 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2020 21:13:28 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; =?utf-8?q?h=3Ddate?= =?utf-8?q?=3Amessage-id=3Afrom=3Ato=3Asubject=3Ain-reply-to=3Areferences=3A?= =?utf-8?q?mime-version=3Acontent-type=3Acontent-id=3Auser-agent=3B?= s=551e.5e77d4f8.k2003; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; =?utf-8?q?bh=3DkDL0Qm5+Syu89xpJ1mNdMJbkCnJC8xsVOIvnwWw9E3A=3D=3B_b=3DLXsPRg?= =?utf-8?q?C8GWTBc19+v/OzCaB25hnHku857hKQU+tbsiy+wlkrEaLpvm4z3tpnwQStWilJmLb?= =?utf-8?q?wzcX3Ypk2+p20gVYjKnOC9F3vg+ciM69isa2GzqJDB+rU5+w8dgi0ciTUOpe1xlal?= =?utf-8?q?ydIFZIjnezuTwHLvDx3FMukDyLpUgrS228W/TJ6dqqvXDtLlD4lOGh3sMcpJRYYoE?= =?utf-8?q?SkvAbz5zAE3kWKa92zJKrZ4L4fj9re/QWeERTqa6WY2S0TkO9eCcU79?=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; =?utf-8?q?h=3Ddate?= =?utf-8?q?=3Amessage-id=3Afrom=3Ato=3Asubject=3Ain-reply-to=3Areferences=3A?= =?utf-8?q?mime-version=3Acontent-type=3Acontent-id=3Auser-agent=3B?= s=551e.5e77d4f8.k2003; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; =?utf-8?q?bh=3DkDL0Qm5+Syu89xpJ1mNdMJbkCnJC8xsVOIvnwWw9E3A=3D=3B_b=3DdrWAiE?= =?utf-8?q?HzOYYkC67hRy5DIz2OBAd3QbeEZ+87UZxPv+IDuwY0lMsNkqpZ8JTSld5Ytn5mB+k?= =?utf-8?q?OufTD9sLNA/x8/VJuwTFaed54ROG8TU8tdmJvdzZt63g0y79WFiocBoqOeizCrBbm?= =?utf-8?q?SVake2MiYT61v4MUqrRKA+3qLuLmBFvLG/IQizReq5wdzyzbB5l4VbaUOP86ZWET0?= =?utf-8?q?ZxLFSYPNn02jbFOvF6WpR76qNajju2mrH0kvIv8RaiBuGd1fEIvT61t?=
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP6; 22 Mar 2020 21:13:28 -0000
Date: 22 Mar 2020 17:13:28 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2003221638340.16970@ary.qy>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Damian Lukowski" <rfc@arcsin.de>, dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <59f7d02b-e15c-25e4-2955-ea44615886e3@arcsin.de>
References: <20200322154438.14E02166129A@ary.qy> <09ec8dda-7165-fae8-f8e1-f88561085e47@arcsin.de> <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2003221534100.16773@ary.qy> <59f7d02b-e15c-25e4-2955-ea44615886e3@arcsin.de>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (OSX 407 2020-02-09)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0-1347382827-1584909547=:16970"
Content-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.22.407.2003221711290.16980@ary.qy>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/sUr0PBExWxyBgiTE-yFulfP61ng>
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 21:13:33 -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.

Figuring out the actual syntax of A-R is quite hard because there are so 
very many external references.

Even the ABNF is tricky -- I had to stare at the definitions of resinfo 
and propspec and pvalue for quite a while to confirm that your 
interpretation was correct.

A lot of people (not you) when reading RFC 5234 assume that there has to 
be only one way that the BNF can match a string.  That's not true, 
ambiguous matches are allowed, and sometimes can make the ABNF simpler.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly