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

"brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> Wed, 06 November 2019 00:06 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 DA14E120121 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 16:06:23 -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 jVTu8nx3m_PH for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 16:06:22 -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 534AE1200C3 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 16:06:22 -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 D08A06044D; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 00:05:50 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=crustytoothpaste.net; s=default; t=1572998751; bh=STFiEiGxNWcMeMEbxvXASzGJ/IDBpg6WEd7SjiNAweg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc: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=CygPpAtI7UP/y9j2iMgT9QfLJIhs5xaZo8dvcxfo3Z5q6F9E3TGYOK/oPv4svwFuX X8K4Hz0R3vmMX/sS27naRyzZeh79k1YJ0xA7SpXuryBkSelyfIsUy3hcGiQTNs3b8D 7DOctoHbPwStCMtfB8u9nL7KmF2I7TKPIQjk4sYo7J51opsIJCDBqBO9/1SsGyLprD +VH0dd8cawf2ZvSTF3o8fcXFXRBliAmVWhNFXdnsKOS7wU7nR0yeTsP0UxamC8580u pX4luhNIt23MC24RUQd2PKyd7dfM/BZOK+EfixJM7YYBoAcYEIhriVFOgYvMDVAid7 EQ3CuP9dei7MCVRh8E48y+gXdKZKOTuMUKV9eN2Yk96e+OmdqdcGJG81H8kFblsGGV whnPjEK2aRstxwEimGvAlQMdm6myAhjBacxyoFbHK2oipIurXBbjbGkPytNDt9YvTt Ic5NHe7LcEUCMq2HFEYeiH10gyxzg14wfWdFu3Gfzg+57WPnIx8
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 00:05:46 +0000
From: "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
To: "Neal H. Walfield" <neal@walfield.org>
Cc: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>, openpgp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20191106000546.GE32531@camp.crustytoothpaste.net>
References: <87woe7zx7o.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87v9rydk9s.wl-neal@walfield.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="X3gaHHMYHkYqP6yf"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87v9rydk9s.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/RgtZ8nlMbwhNqnkRZ9_fChjXG0c>
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 00:06:24 -0000

On 2019-11-05 at 22:35:11, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> I'm considering using the following "grammar".  (I've put grammar in
> scare quotes, because it is not a valid grammar according to RFC 5322
> due to several ambiguities.  In particular, the production "*WS
> [name] *WS" is ambiguous when applied to a string containing a single
> whitespace character: the whitespace character could match the first
> WS or the second one.  In practice, this ambiguity doesn't matter,
> because we only care about what the "name", "comment-content" and
> "addr-spec" productions match.)
> 
>      WS                 = 0x20 (space character)
> 
>      comment-specials   = "<" / ">" /   ; RFC 2822 specials - "(" and ")"
>                           "[" / "]" /
>                           ":" / ";" /
>                           "@" / "\" /
>                           "," / "." /
>                           DQUOTE
> 
>      atext-specials     = "(" / ")" /   ; RFC 2822 specials - "<" and ">".
>                           "[" / "]" /
>                           ":" / ";" /
>                           "@" / "\" /
>                           "," / "." /
>                           DQUOTE
> 
>      atext              = ALPHA / DIGIT /   ; Any character except controls,
>                           "!" / "#" /       ;  SP, and specials.
>                           "$" / "%" /       ;  Used for atoms
>                           "&" / "'" /
>                           "*" / "+" /
>                           "-" / "/" /
>                           "=" / "?" /
>                           "^" / "_" /
>                           "`" / "{" /
>                           "|" / "}" /
>                           "~" /
>                           \u{80}-\u{10ffff} ; Non-ascii, non-control UTF-8
> 
>      name-char-start    = atext / atext-specials
> 
>      name-char-rest     = atext / atext-specials / WS
> 
>      name               = name-char-start *name-char-rest
> 
>      comment-char       = atext / comment-specials / WS
> 
>      comment-content    = *comment-char
> 
>      comment            = "(" *WS comment-content *WS ")"
> 
>      addr-spec          = dot-atom-text "@" dot-atom-text

dot-atom-text isn't defined here, so it isn't clear to me what it
includes.  Does it permit UTF-8 in addresses according to the SMTPUTF8
RFCs?
-- 
brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204