Re: [ietf-822] Wherefore no HTAB in literal text strings in ABNF

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Mon, 15 August 2016 01:37 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 370AD12D526; Sun, 14 Aug 2016 18:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.359
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.359 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL=0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_L5=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=dcrocker.net
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 lCEfH4LpzMm1; Sun, 14 Aug 2016 18:37:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (unknown [72.52.113.5]) (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 98D0712D0F1; Sun, 14 Aug 2016 18:37:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id u7F1botY024477 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 14 Aug 2016 18:37:51 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1471225071; bh=eKtaogPRLOE1diL1TLN2DQP5C5pwM363sR19UTSYkeg=; h=Subject:To:References:Reply-To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=lC3cgNq5xcRysEI/UDjGzfUmdiW+rXkyCQMOf7TE4SHOe8sMf90vfT1B8WSM3ztqf zLATnxq8loVrE/Ty7qaRKVn/EoDuMOpCjlQrFLJ6iV89qB1wBvwMX7eSBc1WiY/sSq Njr0gqm3iV25XFtZjO2xLU2PaAy5E1sPYrjy1t+g=
To: Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>, ABNF-Discuss <abnf-discuss@ietf.org>, ietf-822@ietf.org
References: <3CCAE9E2-DCE8-4AEC-9FDE-FA00A0C3727E@seantek.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <99b8299c-f8bc-3c4e-cb89-b2139d1ca54f@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 18:37:11 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3CCAE9E2-DCE8-4AEC-9FDE-FA00A0C3727E@seantek.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-822/eqMyUgJqoegbzBLpwUdYItRthHY>
Subject: Re: [ietf-822] Wherefore no HTAB in literal text strings in ABNF
X-BeenThere: ietf-822@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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, 15 Aug 2016 01:37:46 -0000

On 8/14/2016 6:34 PM, Sean Leonard wrote:
> I have been working with RFC 5234 lately. What is the rationale (or what are the rationales) for including SP %d32 but excluding HTAB %d9 in char-val, aka the literal text string? I am sure that this decision was not an oversight.

I don't recall.  Sorry.  I could generate guesses, but that's all they'd be.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net