Re: [EAI] Question regarding RFC 6531

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Mon, 26 June 2017 14:47 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD70612EAB4 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jun 2017 07:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isode.com
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 NSHg3RO9EaDo for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jun 2017 07:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from waldorf.isode.com (waldorf.isode.com [62.232.206.188]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D78A5124217 for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jun 2017 07:46:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1498488419; d=isode.com; s=june2016; i=@isode.com; bh=OzgPZIx7RMmFX0TR9+uXdvzf1m3QLpQZh7YtFitPz6k=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=PKiEh6HCNKhNOh/mg+TFT6D3/wd8njEcHctU5zl6NbVlfQJW6pC59aHD5kPpbkDntyRP4+ AIYYAOceUt+3jbtAYLhzQGDWYrjPd0BCNWgy4iwMtURizjqcl16kD34Q81jAIEtDEqDlhk C6ZLuJHFz1s7Z6Dcrm4fZ6ZlzILqh0Q=;
Received: from [172.20.1.215] (dhcp-215.isode.net [172.20.1.215]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <WVEeYgAaZg9s@waldorf.isode.com>; Mon, 26 Jun 2017 15:46:58 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
To: yaojk <yaojk@cnnic.cn>, Eli Skeggs <skeggse@gmail.com>, ima <ima@ietf.org>
References: <dd1a0dc5-b1c2-d0c8-fa2f-852f71c49424@mixmax.com> <20170626101645848077200@cnnic.cn>
Message-ID: <d84aac22-614e-d9ff-1780-8b53091a403c@isode.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 15:46:51 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
In-Reply-To: <20170626101645848077200@cnnic.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------AE7D2F183F66547026777D4B"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/9Jb5Wh2nq0NAMKbOPo1o4OlrJ3M>
Subject: Re: [EAI] Question regarding RFC 6531
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ima/>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 14:47:02 -0000

Hi,

On 26/06/2017 03:17, Jiankang Yao wrote:

> From: Eli Skeggs
> Date: 2017-06-25 12:11
> To: ima
> Subject: [EAI] Question regarding RFC 6531
>> Minor correction to the copy available athttps://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6531#section-3.3:
>>
>>
>> Page 7 includes a link to "RFC 5890, Section 2.3.2.1."
>>
> Dear Eli,
>
> Thanks for your question.
> I think that you mean Page 8, not Page 7.
> In page 8, there is a sentence"The following ABNF rule will be imported from RFC 5890, Section
>     2.3.2.1"
Yes, it is on page 8.
>> The 2.3.2.1 portion incorrectly links to the nonexistent section 2.3.2.1 of RFC 6531 (to itself),
>> where the prior portion of the link is correct. The link immediately >precedes the <U-label> import definition.
>>
> This problem is due to the html version's link problem.  "RFC 5890, Section 2.3.2.1" should link to only one link :"https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5890#section-2.3.2.1",
> but this page separates "RFC 5890, Section 2.3.2.1" to 2 links, and one makes text "RFC 5890,Section" link to RFC 5890, another makes text " 2.3.2.1" link to RFC 6531.
>
> All other similar sentences all got the right link. for examples:
>
>   1) The following ABNF rule will be imported from RFC 5234, Appendix B.1
>   2) extend the definition of sub-domain in RFC 5321, Section 4.1.2
>
>
> The text has no problem.
> We may ask for the help from RFC editors and let them edit the link of text "RFC 5890, Section 2.3.2.1" of the html version of this RFC to make it get the right link.
RFC Editor doesn't control tools.ietf.org HTML version. I think you 
should email Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>; directly.

Best Regards,
Alexey