Subject: [APPS-REVIEW] Usenet spec in IETF last call

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:07:05 -0700

I wasn't going to send this around to Apps-review, as it's a revision  
and not in "architectural" development stage.  However, already in  
last call, Mark Crispin has raised questions about both supersetting  
and subsetting RFC2822.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-10.txt

Anybody agree/disagree with those concerns?

thx,
Lisa

_______________________________________________
APPS-REVIEW mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:00:26 +0100

On Fri Sep 29 00:07:05 2006, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> I wasn't going to send this around to Apps-review, as it's a 
> revision  and not in "architectural" development stage.  However, 
> already in  last call, Mark Crispin has raised questions about both 
> supersetting  and subsetting RFC2822.
> 

I sympathize with them, certainly, but it appears that the additional 
restrictions and altered definitions applied to USENET message are, 
essentially, a regrettable product of the deployed software. In other 
words, this is not an updated specification for people to implement, 
this is an updated documentation describing a largely unwritten 
specification - warts and all.

To try and enforce full RFC2822 syntax would be trying to close the 
barn door after the horse has not only bolted, but was never even in 
the stable in the first place.

However, that said, there are a couple of things which concern me.

While I understand the issues surrounding the redefinitions, the 
language used to require agents to accept "full RFC2822" syntax is 
often quite weak. Consider the requirement for a SP after header 
field names, for example - I appreciate that agents MUST generate at 
least one space, but I feel that for future convergence, it would be 
useful to also specify that they MUST accept no SP. This document 
merely uses MAY.

This is repeated in several areas. I realize there is a desire to 
avoid effectively declaring existing implementations non-conformant, 
but by weakening the ability for USEFOR and RFC2822 to converge, it 
renders this document somewhat more of a BCP than a PS.

To torture a metaphor further, it's akin to closing the barn door 
before the horse has even gone into the stable.

I think it would benefit USENET generally to specify that agents 
SHOULD accept full RFC2822 syntax, even if they MUST generate 
restricted syntax in order to interoperate.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email-masked] - xmpp:[email-masked]
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade