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

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 02 April 2020 08:51 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 B1CD03A0DD5 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 01:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 vKrvO0wGv8Cp for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 01:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (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 E988E3A0DCF for <ima@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 01:51:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1585817492; bh=0tA6hjj6agcoADuGzL2EtZYkwmofa2Aa5NBB5r7dE7k=; l=1313; h=To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=AlRnSzg3PA6lOETi88yjp4VGOYC8hP9JNO5X4h1SfNXe8bvPU1Di6FySjjtjLbFWz wYATw+EJWKsZ4Cf2Cib3lfKErTybYC2fgf4rS/eMzbNDdIsZ2OqdmEOKcBT0xINr6c KnEC8ijTKdv08e9pOJ4oCFuV1w24bLRzzLwExQPl65tS+cz4qii8pIAZ1dgbE
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.2, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC02A.000000005E85A793.000024C4; Thu, 02 Apr 2020 10:51:31 +0200
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, abelyang@twnic.net.tw, Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com, ned+ietf@mrochek.com, ben@nostrum.com, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, adam@nostrum.com, jyee@afilias.info, ima@ietf.org
References: <20200401083756.5D051F40723@rfc-editor.org> <6D9862819E9E4071B83CC6D5@PSB> <01RJ6VTFO7SQ000058@mauve.mrochek.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <df9a8e00-c96a-33f0-9d3e-90c17624db28@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2020 10:51:31 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <01RJ6VTFO7SQ000058@mauve.mrochek.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/zjyRqjfOO9vGcuj2N0w-3Pr3PjU>
Subject: Re: [EAI] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6532 (6036)
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 02 Apr 2020 08:51:38 -0000

On Wed 01/Apr/2020 20:14:49 +0200 Ned Freed wrote:
> Your recollection is correct and so is your point about this being
> a fundamental change to SMTPUTF8. There was a strong consensus that
> parameter names didn't need to be internationalized.


I didn't realize that that would change the requirements for SMTPUTF8, since
actual Content-Type header fields need a registration or some kind of agreement
among the parties using X-whatever tokens.

RFC 5322's word term is defined quite alike, as word = atom / quoted-string.
However, atom is defined in terms of atext, which is extended by RFC 6532.  I
hope you will excuse me for not having realized that an internationalized
Content-Type: would have changed SMTPUTF8 requirements, given that non-ASCII
Received: fields are already possible.


Anyway, I don't know how many specs imported "value" from RFC2045.  For RFC
8601, the most backward compatible fix is perhaps to import token instead of
value, extend token by /= UTF8-non-ascii, and then define value using the
extended token:

value := token / quoted-string


Oh well...  if this erratum is rejected, the one needed for RFC 8601 will most
likely be more complicated  than this.  So I think the attempt has been worth
trying.  Thank you everyone for your time.


Best
Ale
--