Re: [yam] slightly off topic: "token" production - MIME vs HTTP

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Sun, 07 February 2010 19:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yam@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0205928C115 for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Feb 2010 11:03:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.49
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.110, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1WObhs1EBmu9 for <yam@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Feb 2010 11:03:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F68B3A70EF for <yam@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Feb 2010 11:03:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01NJDNF1FVDS009W9M@mauve.mrochek.com> for yam@ietf.org; Sun, 7 Feb 2010 11:04:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01NJDN56TZWG0000BI@mauve.mrochek.com>; Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:04:13 -0800 (PST)
Message-id: <01NJDNF04R3U0000BI@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:02:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:45:15 +0100" <4B6B23CB.50305@gmx.de>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; Format=flowed
References: <4B6B23CB.50305@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: yam@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [yam] slightly off topic: "token" production - MIME vs HTTP
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Yet Another Mail working group discussion list <yam.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam>
List-Post: <mailto:yam@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:03:18 -0000

> sorry for being a bit off-topic.

> Does anybody recall the reason why "token" in MIME (RFC 2045, and
> earlier) allows "{" and "}", while HTTP (RFC 2616, and earlier) does not?

There were a number of discrepancies between MIME and HTTP that crept in
for various reasons, but I don't recall the origins of this one.

I searched my email from around the time this decision was made but couldn't
find anything about this. Sorry.

				Ned