Re: [EAI] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6532 (6036)

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Please note that none of the ART ADs on this thread (and errata report) are current.

> On Apr 1, 2020, at 12:24 PM, John R. Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I would suggest rejecting this erratum.  The motivation is that "token" is imported into RFC 8601 where we have found some unfortunate results, but the solution is to fix 8601, which we're working on.
> 
> R's,
> John
> 
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2020, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
>> My vague recollection is that this was an explicit decision by
>> the WG.   Essentially, just as the WG concluded that header
>> field names should remain restricted to ASCII, the conclusion
>> was that Content-type fields were protocol parameters, not
>> information for the user, and that there was no need (and
>> potentially some cost and risks) to allow non-ASCII characters
>> or free text more generally.  One could revisit that question,
>> but I believe that the appropriate way to do it would be to
>> generate an Internet draft that explained the issues and
>> tradeoffs and proposed a change -- not just to RFC 6532 but to
>> the IANA registries related to Content-type parameter values.
>> 
>> In any event not something that is possible as a erratum because
>> the change would change the technical requirements for an
>> SMTPUTF8 implementation.
>> 
>> best,
>> john
>> 
>> 
>> --On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 01:37 -0700 RFC Errata System
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6532,
>>> "Internationalized Email Headers".
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> You may review the report below and at:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6036
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Type: Technical
>>> Reported by: Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>
>>> 
>>> Section: GLOBAL
>>> 
>>> Original Text
>>> -------------
>>> A section 3.2bis, "Syntax Extensions to RFC 2045", is missing.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Corrected Text
>>> --------------
>>> In particular, Section 5.1 of RFC 2045, "Syntax of the
>>> Content-Type Header Field", deserves an extension:
>>> 
>>>    token /= UTF8-non-ascii
>>> 
>>> similar to the extensions given to various text types given in
>>> Section 3.2.
>>> 
>>> Notes
>>> -----
>>> Various header fields are defined in terms of the grammar
>>> defined in RFC 2045.  In particular, the missing extension of
>>> token was reported for Authentication-Results:
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/g1U__axJW5I6OenEuw
>>> D48nwptzU
>>> 
>>> Instructions:
>>> -------------
>>> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary,
>>> please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be
>>> verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the
>>> verifying party   can log in to change the status and edit the
>>> report, if necessary.
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> RFC6532 (draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-13)
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Title               : Internationalized Email Headers
>>> Publication Date    : February 2012
>>> Author(s)           : A. Yang, S. Steele, N. Freed
>>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>>> Source              : Email Address Internationalization
>>> Area                : Applications
>>> Stream              : IETF
>>> Verifying Party     : IESG
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> Regards,
> John Levine, [e-mail], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly