Subject: #1080 - description of Injection-Info

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 20:34:36 GMT

AIUI, the present state of play is as follows:

1. Injection-Info currently makes use of MIME-style parameters.

2. It was always intended that these paramaters should accord in all
applicable respects with those defined in RFC 2045 plus RFC 2231.

3. It is not in dispute that the description in the current USEFOR does
not accord with RFC 2045, since it gives separate ABNF for each
<parameter>, which permits or does not permit CFWS in the proper places,
and which does not provide for encapsulation in <quoted-string>s in the
proper places. Also, it should be noted that RFC 2046 never gives ABNF for
specific <parameter>s, presumably for that same reason.

4. There is some disquiet about the unnecessary complications introduced
by the more gibbous features of RFC 2231. Nevertheless, everybody (except
possibly Bruce) has, at one time or another, expressed a willingness to
live with MIME-style parameters if nothing else is seen to be forthcoming.

5. The possibility of an entirely different syntax has been mooted from
time to time but, at the last poll that was conducted, there was clearly
no consensus to embark on such a step, and I doubt Harald would wish us to
embark on reinventing any such wheels at the present time.

6. Absent such a major change of direction, it only remains to fix the
problems mention in #3 above. I proposed a text some while back, but Russ
seemed to suggest there might be some other fix possible, though we have
seen no details of any other fix.

7. I therefore repeat my proposed text below (with a few tunings in the
light of discussion). AFAICS, it fixes the problem. Is there now any
reason not to adopt this text, and to move on?

8. In recognition about concerns with the gibbousness of RFC 2231, there
is a NOTE at the end indicating why it is hardly necessary to use it. If
people want such a text, then let it stay - I am neutral on it.  It there
is any doubt about whether it should be there, then it should probably
come out.

   injection-info  =  "Injection-Info:" SP [CFWS] path-identity
                      [CFWS] *( ";" parameter ) CRLF

     NOTE: The syntax of <parameter> ([RFC2045] as amended by
     [RFC2231]), taken in conjunction with the folding rules of [RFC
     822], effectively allows [CFWS] to occur both before and after the
     <parameter>, and also on either side of its "=".

   The following table gives the <attribute> and the format of the
   <value> for each <parameter> defined for use with this header field.
   At most one occurrence of each such <parameter> is allowed.

   <attribute>                           format of <value>
   -------------------------------------------------------

   "posting-host"                        a <host-value>
   "posting-account"                     any <value>
   "sender"                              a <sender-value>
   "logging-data"                        any <value>
   "mail-complaints-to"                  an <address-list>

   where

   host-value      =  dot-atom-text /
                      [ dot-atom-text ":" ] ( IPv4address / IPv6address )
                                       ;  see [RFC 3986]
   sender-value    =  mailbox / "verified"

     NOTE: Since any such <host-value>, <sender-value> or <address-list>
     has also to be a syntactically correct <value>, it will usually be
     necessary to encapsulate is as a <quoted-string>, for example:

     sender = "\"Joe Q. Public\" <[email-masked]>"

   Additionally, any other <parameter> whose <attribute> starts with
   "x-" MAY be used where the defined ones appear to be unsuitable, but
   other unlisted <parameter>s SHOULD NOT be used unless defined in
   extensions to this standard.

[The inclusion or not of the following NOTE is to be discussed by the WG.]

     NOTE: Should Non-ASCII characters be required in any <value>, the
     mechanisms described in Section 4 of [RFC 2231] are available.
     However, it is unlikely that the more gibbous mechanisms of Section
     3 will be needed, given the possibility of folding within
     <quoted-string>s and the lack of any limit on the length of a
     header line short of the maximum 998 characters.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   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: [email-masked] (Ralph Babel)
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:17:04 +0100

Charles Lindsey wrote:

> Nevertheless, everybody (except possibly Bruce) has,
> at one time or another, expressed a willingness to

No, Mr. "Editor".

http://imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/msg02554.html

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 21:08:29 +0100

Charles Lindsey wrote:

> However, it is unlikely that the more gibbous mechanisms of
> Section 3 will be needed, given the possibility of folding
> within <quoted-string>s and the lack of any limit on the
> length of a header line short of the maximum 998 characters.

Get rid of that, it doesn't help.  The proposed "security
considerations" already take care of some gibbous 2822 / 2231
"features".

If implementors still don't get the message (= "PITA"), then
your "however...unlikely" note declaring that a problem is no
real problem makes it worse.
                               Bye, Frank

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 11:54:57 GMT

>considerations" already take care of some gibbous 2822 / 2231

Yes, I have no problem with getting rid of that if people do not want it.

Are you happy with the rest of it?

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 14:59:30 +0100

> Are you happy with the rest of it?

As long as Bruce proposes no better solution - in a form ready
for his own review (and relatively minor obstacles like Gen-Art
or the IESG) - it's the only Injection-Info game in town:

<http://mid.gmane.org/[email-masked]>

I haven't checked that all [CFWS] are where they should be,
and I'm lost with your revised revisions of something that
I've never seen, because it's not draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-05.

                         Bye, Frank

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:15:29 GMT

>I've never seen, because it's not draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-05.

I hope it is clear which paragraphs of USEFOR are to be replaced. For the
removal of doubt, the existing 1st para from USEFOR 3.2.14 remains, the
ABNF syntax is replace by my text (probably without the "gibbous" bit),
and all existing USEFOR paragraphs following the present ABNF remain.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 09:27:25 +0100

I have entered this into the tracker as "proposed text", and set the status 
to "Text proposed" - I believe that the general format is a reasonable 
approach, while I may quibble over formulations.

                Harald

--On fredag, november 11, 2005 20:34:36 +0000 Charles Lindsey 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own
> thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133
> 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: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 11:13:04 GMT

>approach, while I may quibble over formulations.

Fair enough. I presume that is without that "gibbous" note at the end.

If anyone has quibbles over the formulations, then let us have them and
fix them.