Subject: AUTH48 is stuck

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:45:28 GMT

RFC 5536 (aka our USEFOR) draft is stuck in AUTH 48.

The problem is that it is agreed it needs to refer to RFC 5532 rather than
RFC 2822, but RFC has changed the syntax of Message-ID (considerably
simplified it) and this has consequential effects on the corresponding
syntax in RFC 5536.

I published the changes I considered desirable (a considerable
simplification in fact) in this WG months and months ago, and I thought we
had rough consensus that they should go ahead - certainly several people
seemed happy with the idea, and none opposed it.

But I am only the second editor. Ken Murchison is the primary editor and
holds the responsibility for communicating the changes to the RFC Editor,
unless either he or Harald decides or requests otherwise. But there has
been total silence from Ken, apart from two messages to say he would do it
"RSN".

Every month, the RFC Editor circulates to the editors and others concerned
an enquiry as to whether the changes are yet available, and each month I
reply saying we are still waiting for Ken.

In desperation a few weeks ago, I prepared the diffs I considered
necessary in the required format, and sent them to Ken (CC to Harald)
with a request that he either adopted them, or did his own, or authorized
me to submit them myself. But there has been no reply.

How can we proceed if neither Ken nor Harald are replying to emails? And
how else can we proceed?

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131            Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

---

From: Julien ÉLIE <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:52:32 +0200

Hi Charles,

> RFC 5536 (aka our USEFOR) draft is stuck in AUTH 48.

And what is the status of RFC 5537 (USEPRO)?  Is it blocked by RFC 5536?

> How can we proceed if neither Ken nor Harald are replying to emails? And

Too bad USEFOR is stucked in AUTH 48.  Doesn't the RFC Editor have
a "backup solution"?  Maybe Russ has an idea (he is currently on holiday).

And on another subject, do you have a ready-to-release useage-02?

-- 
Julien ÉLIE

« Memoriam quoque ipsam cum uoce perdidissemus,
  si tam in nostra potestate esset obliuisci quam tacere. »
  (Tacite, _Vie d'Agricola_)

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:20:38 GMT

>And what is the status of RFC 5537 (USEPRO)?  Is it blocked by RFC 5536?

Yes. Not much point in publishing the one without the other.

>a "backup solution"?  Maybe Russ has an idea (he is currently on holiday).

Yes, I would welcome some inpout from Russ.

>And on another subject, do you have a ready-to-release useage-02?

No.

---

From: Julien ÉLIE <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:24:54 +0200

Hi Charles,

> simplified it) and this has consequential effects on the corresponding

If I understand well the new syntax in USEFOR, the following message-IDs
are invalid:

<"test"@test>
<te"st@test>
<test@[te\st]>
<test@[te\\st]>

whereas the following message-ID is valid:

<test@[te"st]>

Do you confirm?

Syntax in USEFOR is:

   message-id      =  "Message-ID:" SP *WSP msg-id *WSP CRLF

   msg-id          =  "<" msg-id-core ">"
                      ; maximum length is 250 octets

   msg-id-core     =  id-left "@" id-right

   id-left         =  dot-atom-text

   id-right        =  dot-atom-text / no-fold-literal

   no-fold-literal =  "[" *mdtext "]"

   mdtext          =  %d33-61 /        ; The rest of the US-ASCII
                      %d63-90 /        ; characters not including
                      %d94-126         ; ">", "[", "]", or "\"

with (from RFC 5322):

   dot-atom-text   =   1*atext *("." 1*atext)

   atext           =   ALPHA / DIGIT /    ; Printable US-ASCII
                       "!" / "#" /        ;  characters not including
                       "$" / "%" /        ;  specials.  Used for atoms.
                       "&" / "'" /
                       "*" / "+" /
                       "-" / "/" /
                       "=" / "?" /
                       "^" / "_" /
                       "`" / "{" /
                       "|" / "}" /
                       "~"

Thanks,

-- 
Julien ÉLIE

« Tempora si fuerint nubila, solus eris. » (Ovide)

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:32:12 GMT

>Do you confirm?

Correct. And the same is true in RFC 5322 also. But some strange variants
such as <"te..st@test> are allowed in the present USEFOR syntax.

RFC 5322 disallows _any_ <quoted-string> before the '@', and so all the
funny cases disappear. My proposal is to disallow the same things in
USEFOR

>Syntax in USEFOR is:

N.B. this is the syntax I propose

>   id-left         =  dot-atom-text

Wheaeas the USEFOR draft currently has

    id-left         =  dot-atom-text / no-fold-quote
followed by a syntax for no-fold-quote