IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-822] What about doing more? (was: Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-crocker-inreply-react-01.txt)

Ricardo Signes <rjbs@semiotic.systems> Mon, 12 October 2020 03:49 UTC

Return-Path: <rjbs@semiotic.systems>
X-Original-To: ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DA5A3A09F2 for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 20:49:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=semiotic.systems header.b=O9yuMk13; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=CwLqueBh
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 ychk8CPCZjUg for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 20:49:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 806E93A08C3 for <ietf-822@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 20:49:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB39D5C01EF for <ietf-822@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 23:49:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap35 ([10.202.2.85]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 11 Oct 2020 23:49:54 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= semiotic.systems; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to :references:date:from:to:subject:content-type; s=fm2; bh=2Udw76V 0II01smOjYHR++GG0TKYU0Ja8kjcxc2+GQpE=; b=O9yuMk13Z2lG4GK4829IRsF GHkfQdwJX3srGpai8IKz8/tRHu/RpZDmuxVPJ1f8vnbXH6s2/3zeOewtJQnkhus/ cFaKKRWt/FSP5UprlvFfd6LxHu+g+3eIEenoK5mZzF024CG3oJbF1LMqUW8ttzyG ZWu7F4DpILF1QlqfZZo3YeTJOUPMToY5az+f+xJmm11/YzZ4xk3FUt0+ddm4S3cN cCMQhOwc4sQWCfhjVBQytSlKr2ko1iHeofhElwOdHZYZ1Mu4N6tqOvGqUg52kjf6 2hlRcVWJDFdc8eQZq1EgKQ1PZP/cNJ6EeWkSq9CucdW81xNDA6fMD8NRSA/Q34w= =
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=2Udw76 V0II01smOjYHR++GG0TKYU0Ja8kjcxc2+GQpE=; b=CwLqueBhcq+BuCXY2U8C+m EgA1YaRGRRoLcxlTlVPfKj05Wic0kW/y/oT7FasAelKIqhVLJpUaSATsbb8JQFbQ It8QpmcNwfhJWRe90GbDvc1dAiv0LIrNnlwiEvQ/dpPJWU1XjKr60XynhqYTgSAx p3AIBzVIyFl2VYZckj3+XSdGZrfjGgGDWAkR1wZ91C+m6aUHGsz47/84nBGaOOTv gQlf8VqIcYBb7tbZ5V0kpn7r7t+SwR0iS+KMhH9qGiLPufgDVI2XEKXvi/SjmPr0 TmEOYVZQjJza4B/Nl+atZvKXas+9seSdZqnfJxlf5TuY9CKwcRXZhV4hoKgefZRA ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:YtKDX5xDIlziXMZs-lf6xtUtVuZY3nG5wjbvYcld2UpVyZDWpxZeGg> <xme:YtKDX5QNG-eboqGgz8XLHpu1TSQsqns0JmabwJSHecq0XavqtARFW7UQZgwMGKwnf 6Q3eSxFCKnCztS-a-w>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrheeigdejiecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesrgdtre erreerjeenucfhrhhomhepfdftihgtrghrughoucfuihhgnhgvshdfuceorhhjsghssehs vghmihhothhitgdrshihshhtvghmsheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepvefgveegueelhf euledvleefveekkeefheelkeetieehjeevudeujeelkeehtefgnecuffhomhgrihhnpehf rghsthhmrghilhdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmh grihhlfhhrohhmpehrjhgsshesshgvmhhiohhtihgtrdhshihsthgvmhhs
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:YtKDXzUYiIg0s4zNMGQQhtp6DcFItCjBXJk2chaTBMUlp6uFvgSeAA> <xmx:YtKDX7hYcfN1_4z-Ctw7Tg65T-f5zYP5TpVtamvdOaMtpM7lbaV2hQ> <xmx:YtKDX7Da2xJIdxhG-95369V2mgO0X9h5G6GEIKKrY1kiUWiglAFbeA> <xmx:YtKDX-MFRV43hFqFTPV3Nl2xYQq6TH4vk0xvlzTdvnQ7MFPHRc211A>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 04D6214C03E2; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 23:49:53 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-407-g461656c-fm-20201004.001-g461656c6
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <7f40d841-b42e-46b9-a085-63ff4858623f@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20201012024430.EBB4F23493C8@ary.qy>
References: <20201012024430.EBB4F23493C8@ary.qy>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 23:49:33 -0400
From: Ricardo Signes <rjbs@semiotic.systems>
To: ietf-822@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="c0f74751553a49e7b1219d7c7f5aca1c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-822/OfLLFS50cdbDKYMEvZESptuoM-g>
Subject: Re: [ietf-822] What about doing more? (was: Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-crocker-inreply-react-01.txt)
X-BeenThere: ietf-822@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Internet Message Format \[RFC 822, RFC 2822, RFC 5322\]" <ietf-822.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-822>, <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-822/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-822@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822>, <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 03:49:58 -0000

On Sun, Oct 11, 2020, at 10:44 PM, John Levine wrote:
> In article <106aecda-a406-4fc5-8d3d-66c3c364edaa@www.fastmail.com> you write:
> >The problem here is that some implementors like to validate data at layers were its validity is (probably) irrelevant to its intended use.
> 
> "Don't do that".

Right.  And my email said:
> Maybe this warrants a note for implementors, and maybe not, but it seemed worth raising the point.

So:  "Is it worth including «Don't do that.» in this spec?"

On Sun, Oct 11, 2020, at 10:44 PM, John Levine wrote:
> If they haven't already figured out that it's a fool's errand to
> validate Unicode beyond broad rules like don't allow surrogates in
> UTF-8, they're not going to figure it out for this tiny hack.

I believe this says "It is not worth including that."

-- 
rjbs

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email