IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Last-Call] [standcore.com-standards] Re: Last Call: <draft-billon-expires-06.txt> (Updated Use of the Expires Message Header Field) to Proposed Standard

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Wed, 30 November 2022 10:36 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F335C094EFC for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Nov 2022 02:36:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.097 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mgTHlDkkzq6V for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Nov 2022 02:36:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from waldorf.isode.com (waldorf.isode.com [62.232.206.188]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C520C094EF8 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Nov 2022 02:36:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1669804572; d=isode.com; s=june2016; i=@isode.com; bh=Pr4lKZK2tjMTIRV7n/yhVw1zWbVt97IFGurIdi9hq8M=; 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=B5ifzIdZIJjbvnpILFhA28E7IGqLKTbMchfvjCykCg+xuZpIYqAMhI4y+1cEssj/yoUbEV 4l6RjldepEyGpSnDsZ7YIm83FgUUHDnK476d1W+7v4qAM05l+qVr+AYRGIQmGOrJAvNWSW 51mg82g9LjgG0w8KxesDEGqseXnIWBw=;
Received: from [192.168.1.222] (host31-49-219-67.range31-49.btcentralplus.com [31.49.219.67]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <Y4cyGgBS6AfU@waldorf.isode.com>; Wed, 30 Nov 2022 10:36:12 +0000
Message-ID: <91cc7e91-7bea-cb55-f129-b27772eea601@isode.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 10:36:04 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.2
To: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>, last-call@ietf.org, bbillon@splio.com, standards@standcore.com
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
References: <166973210946.22951.15613495979123865103@ietfa.amsl.com> <fff569c8-f2ac-1ddb-ba71-16709b4c723c@isode.com> <d1c6c2e2-18de-23a2-6969-a565cf40e0e7@iecc.com>
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <d1c6c2e2-18de-23a2-6969-a565cf40e0e7@iecc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/21T_XoqXYUvzxcWCG68iVinHAlI>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] [standcore.com-standards] Re: Last Call: <draft-billon-expires-06.txt> (Updated Use of the Expires Message Header Field) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 10:36:18 -0000

Hi John,

On 29/11/2022 20:53, John R. Levine wrote:
>> I only have a small nit:
>>
>> RFC 5322 defines syntax for the Date header field:
>>
>>    orig-date = "Date:" date-time CRLF
>>
>> Note the terminating CRLF.
>
> Our draft inherits the header's definition from RFC4021 which refers 
> to RFC 2156 where the definition on page 88 imports its ABNF from RFC 
> 822, since it predates 2822.  In 822 most of the white space was 
> descibed in prose, not in the ABNF.  In 2822 the white space was made 
> explicit, carried over into 5322.
>
> I could certainly change the definition to use 5322 ABNF but then it 
> won't match the one in 2156, and our point is that this is the same 
> header that 2156 defined, just allowed in more contexts.

Both RFC 5322 and RFC 2156 intend to define the same syntax, so I don't 
think which one is referenced matters that much. Obviously I prefer the 
reference to RFC 5322, but lack of CRLF is not going to get people 
confused when implementing, so it is not a big deal.

Best Regards,

Alexey

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email