Re: [EAI] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6531 (4996)

[Vitaliy T <[e-mail]>]

On 18 April 2017 at 19:57, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> If it is a question, then use of the errata system to report it
> is entirely inappropriate.  RFC Editor and IESG, please mark the
> proposed erratum as "rejected" for this reason and the more
> substantive ones given on this list.

It is a question which should be identified as Errata. IMHO.

> I need to apologize for sounding annoyed, but the errata process
> is very heavy-duty and costs a lot of people (including me in my
> former WG co-chair capacity) a lot of time, time that is largely
> wasted in this case.  If you have a question, please raise it on
> the mailing list, even if that question is "is this a mistake in
> the spec or do I just not understand the terminology or what is
> going on".   If the answer is that it is an error, the errata
> process works much better because you will have already
> established some signs of consensus on the issues.

Yes, I understand. Your time is NOT wasted, be sure. You helped me and
probably you may help others (like me).

> Sure there is.   It is in the ASCII Standard, cited as [ASCII]
> in the document.  If that is inconvenient to find, see SeIf
> nothing else, see Section 4.2 of RFC 20.

You have rise another issue on the topic. Neither [RFC6530] or
[RFC6531] have a reference to [RFC20]. And a reference to it leads to
the question in this errata.

> Ned and I disagree.   See above.   Probably 6531 (and 6530)
> should have referenced RFC 20 in addition to the base ASCII
> spec, but there was a lot of controversy in the community about
> that at the time.

If [RFC6531] will have a reference to [RFC20] then the sentence from
[RFC6531] even more confusing. Let's see what we have.

1. As [RFC20] states in section "4.2", for instance, the character "+"
is considered as a graphic character.

2. In [RFC6531] has been said in section "3.3":

  The definition of <atext> is extended to permit both the RFC 5321
  definition and a UTF-8 string. That string MUST NOT contain any
  of the ASCII graphics or control characters.

3. In [RFC5322] has been said in section "3.2.3"

  atext = ALPHA / DIGIT / ; Printable US-ASCII
      "!" / "#" / ; characters not including
       "$" / "%" / ; specials. Used for atoms.
       "&" / "’" /
       "*" / "+" /
       "-" / "/" /
       "=" / "?" /
       "^" / "_" /
       "‘" / "{" /
       "|" / "}" /
       "~"

4. And later in [RFC6531] has been said:

   atext =/ UTF8-non-ascii

What statement is truth? May be a correction should look like this:

  atext = ALPHA / DIGIT / UTF8-non-ascii


> See above.  I think the authors (again, both of 6531 and
> 6530)should be happy to accept an erratum that asks for
> additional clarification or references, but I'm unconvinced that
> you have found an error, or even a major omission, in the text.

If you see that there is no mistake, then we can close the question.

Sorry, no offends, perhaps, I am wrong. Thanks for your time.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Vitaliy V. Tokarev