Re: [EAI] Question regarding RFC 6531

"Jiankang Yao" <yaojk@cnnic.cn> Mon, 26 June 2017 02:18 UTC

Return-Path: <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
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 AFC66128B93 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Jun 2017 19:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 kUKk3CkXC-He for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Jun 2017 19:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp13.cnnic.cn [218.241.118.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 244E6127873 for <ima@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Jun 2017 19:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from healthyao-PC (unknown [218.241.103.224]) by ocmail02.zx.nicx.cn (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf0BZYJzWblBZQCleKw--.4461S2; Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:17:58 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:17:47 +0800
From: "Jiankang Yao" <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
To: "Eli Skeggs" <skeggse@gmail.com>, ima <ima@ietf.org>
Reply-To: yaojk <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
References: <dd1a0dc5-b1c2-d0c8-fa2f-852f71c49424@mixmax.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.92[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <20170626101645848077200@cnnic.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-CM-TRANSID: AQAAf0BZYJzWblBZQCleKw--.4461S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoW7tFWDZF4fXF4rWF4rZFy7Jrb_yoW8GFWfpa 1jvr9rK34DXr1rXF4kAryjkay8XrZ7tFWrCryxJr1Utay5ZFyktFnayFs0vrZrWr4vya1j va1I9w45Ga4DA37anT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUU9qb7Iv0xC_tr1lb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I2 0VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rw A2F7IY1VAKz4vEj48ve4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Xr0_Ar1l84ACjcxK6xII jxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Cr0_Gr1UM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVAFwI0_Gr1j6F4UJwA2z4x0Y4 vEx4A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_Cr1j6rxdM2AIxVAIcxkEcVAq07x20xvEncxIr21l5I8CrVAC Y4xI64kE6c02F40Ex7xfMcIj6xIIjxv20xvE14v26r1j6r18McIj6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJV W8JwAm72CE4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lF7xvr2IYc2Ij64vIr41lFcxC0VAYjxAxZF0Ew4CE w7xC0wCY02Avz4vE14v_Gr1l42xK82IYc2Ij64vIr41l4I8I3I0E4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr 1lx2IqxVAqx4xG67AKxVWUJVWUGwC20s026x8GjcxK67AKxVWUGVWUWwC2zVAF1VAY17CE 14v26r1Y6r17MIIYrxkI7VAKI48JMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4lIxAIcVC0I7 IYx2IY6xkF7I0E14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvE42xK8VAvwI8IcIk0rVWrZr1j6s0DMIIF0xvE x4A2jsIE14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1l6VACY4xI67k042 43AbIYCTnIWIevJa73UjIFyTuYvjxUcmL9UUUUU
X-CM-SenderInfo: x1dryyw6fq0xffof0/
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/sTSVPLSkqhISRSkXp77FiYeQO6k>
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 02:18:06 -0000

From: Eli Skeggs
Date: 2017-06-25 12:11
To: ima
Subject: [EAI] Question regarding RFC 6531
>Minor correction to the copy available at https://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"

>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.

Thanks.


Jiankang Yao

>
>Thanks,
>Eli