Re: [openpgp] User ID conventions (it's not really a RFC2822 name-addr)

"brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> Wed, 06 November 2019 23:33 UTC

Return-Path: <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E3281201B7 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 15:33:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (3072-bit key) header.d=crustytoothpaste.net
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 DOcgZlPHg2j8 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 15:32:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from injection.crustytoothpaste.net (injection.crustytoothpaste.net [192.241.140.119]) (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 3EBCE1200A4 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 15:32:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from camp.crustytoothpaste.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:b978:101:b610:a2f0:36c1:12e3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by injection.crustytoothpaste.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E870A60424 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 23:32:53 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=crustytoothpaste.net; s=default; t=1573083174; bh=zjwQ0XBjio91+VH0s6tntgQjlwX0fqYDK+hghVfKhm0=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:Content-Type:Content-Disposition: In-Reply-To:From:Reply-To:Subject:Date:To:CC:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:Content-Disposition; b=f33K3VdHBfN3fDYTNMsNsTvjujLDX1UCJMNS3lcq3ZCDclugT4OgXN0Sos8A1vn/F aKAH71hBwD4meI0nuLfU4mm3mu8N4H9WsTtEZ3Ypwez5kAsiPUV+qB4Occ+kLnNEMa mWPT3w8hQ2ugjYMPbw8m2RWSozWqedz0nNEJA2jkNzt06qmM9h/dUSLrSiFPFpPmT6 NEQtmpNxpldqpk3vtHTIEn0DbuEX+IpK48/aw/dz/Ibqw5q3Q71obRkQfh0BdLqivV bCcXkH6D7ggd6vPjV4EO2hxf16v1Ammk2Qht5Jv5//AVCfDjukvXYcLexAgSIJMmtA 1fopHe504Q1KMg5RTCIOSNsQ4/cXvSdTxZTUk5i6FtrSZvIaZZBB3jgfxKnBLgwBks eDMBUEtFtB9c4HWSeM/mniDz9ZPndAgZ3G139J9G7BxIX/BBfoOcTdNOWB4MxifErq JgobNRA5L6+c5XWOg1mHTOqllfjHjgIxDJOP+UYUR0YrfG3L/Q8
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 23:32:49 +0000
From: "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
To: openpgp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20191106233249.GG32531@camp.crustytoothpaste.net>
References: <87woe7zx7o.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87v9rydk9s.wl-neal@walfield.org> <20191106000546.GE32531@camp.crustytoothpaste.net> <87tv7he9ql.wl-neal@walfield.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="aYDVKSzuImP48n7V"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87tv7he9ql.wl-neal@walfield.org>
X-Machine: Running on camp using GNU/Linux on x86_64 (Linux kernel 5.3.0-1-amd64)
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/-GVeezPMt4g2TG0l3slqc2jhSQE>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] User ID conventions (it's not really a RFC2822 name-addr)
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <openpgp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/openpgp/>
List-Post: <mailto:openpgp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 23:33:00 -0000

On 2019-11-06 at 07:37:22, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> Thanks for catching that.  When turning my code into a grammar, I
> somehow forgot that production.
> 
> 
> The dot_atom_text is unchanged from e.g. RFC 2822:
> 
>    dot_atom_text      = 1*atext *("." *atext)
> 
> But since we've extended atext to include non-control UTF-8
> characters, this should allow international email addresses.
> 
> RFC 6531 (the SMTPUTF8 RFC) extends atext as follows:
> 
>   atext   =/  UTF8-non-ascii
>     ; extend the implicit definition of atext in
>     ; RFC 5321, Section 4.1.2, which ultimately points to
>     ; the actual definition in RFC 5322, Section 3.2.3
> 
>   https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6531#section-3.3
> 
> which, I think, is what I did above.
> 
> But, I've only skimmed RFC 6531 so I might have missed something else.

Yup, in that case, I have no objections to your grammar.  It seems fine
to me.
-- 
brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204