From nobody Thu Sep 21 08:20:51 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: usefor@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: usefor@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF264134B7B; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 08:20:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 ge2RRF05c-h3; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 08:20:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDD16134B7F; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 08:20:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 0035FB80E74; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 08:20:27 -0700 (PDT) To: pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu, murch@andrew.cmu.edu, chl@clerew.man.ac.uk, dan@dankohn.com X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php From: RFC Errata System Cc: aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, iesg@ietf.org, usefor@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Message-Id: <20170921152028.0035FB80E74@rfc-editor.org> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 08:20:27 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: [usefor] [Errata Verified] RFC5536 (5116) X-BeenThere: usefor@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of usefor issues." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 15:20:51 -0000 The following errata report has been verified for RFC5536, "Netnews Article Format". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5116 -------------------------------------- Status: Verified Type: Technical Reported by: Paul Kyzivat Date Reported: 2017-09-14 Verified by: Alexey Melnikov (IESG) Section: 3 Original Text ------------- fields =/ *( approved / archive / control / distribution / expires / followup-to / injection-date / injection-info / lines / newsgroups / organization / path / summary / supersedes / user-agent / xref ) Corrected Text -------------- optional-field = news-fields = approved / archive / control / distribution / expires / followup-to / injection-date / injection-info / lines / newsgroups / organization / path / summary / supersedes / user-agent / xref optional-field =/ news-fields Notes ----- In Section 3 of RFC5536, the ABNF syntax provided does not do what is clearly intended. What is specified is: fields =/ *( approved / archive / control / distribution / expires / followup-to / injection-date / injection-info / lines / newsgroups / organization / path / summary / supersedes / user-agent / xref ) and that extends RFC5322: fields = *(trace *optional-field / *(resent-date / resent-from / resent-sender / resent-to / resent-cc / resent-bcc / resent-msg-id)) *(orig-date / from / sender / reply-to / to / cc / bcc / message-id / in-reply-to / references / subject / comments / keywords / optional-field) message = (fields / obs-fields) [CRLF body] The problem is with the way things are grouped. Let me give a simpler example: foo = *("a" / "b") / *("c" / "d") This means the following are valid: ab aabb bab cd ccdd dcd But the following are not: abcd ac I think it is clear that the latter is intended to be valid, for which the syntax would be: foo = *("a" / "b" / "c" / "d") The above fix is based on discussion with Pete Resnick (editor of RFC 5322), Julien ÉLIE, Alexey Melnikov and Paul Kyzivat. -------------------------------------- RFC5536 (draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-12) -------------------------------------- Title : Netnews Article Format Publication Date : November 2009 Author(s) : K. Murchison, Ed., C. Lindsey, D. Kohn Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Usenet Article Standard Update Area : Applications Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From nobody Thu Sep 21 23:23:57 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: usefor@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: usefor@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5046B133207 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 15:06:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 UuVKdmwiKSiR for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 15:06:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A9F7133011 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 15:06:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 2A3ECB80DD9; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 15:06:01 -0700 (PDT) To: murch@andrew.cmu.edu, chl@clerew.man.ac.uk, dan@dankohn.com, ben@nostrum.com, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, adam@nostrum.com, alexey.melnikov@isode.com, harald@alvestrand.no X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:errata_mail_lib.php From: RFC Errata System Cc: pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu, usefor@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Message-Id: <20170921220601.2A3ECB80DD9@rfc-editor.org> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 15:06:01 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 23:23:56 -0700 Subject: [usefor] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5536 (5116) X-BeenThere: usefor@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of usefor issues." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 22:06:24 -0000 The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5536, "Netnews Article Format". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5116 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Paul Kyzivat Section: 3 Original Text ------------- fields =/ *( approved / archive / control / distribution / expires / followup-to / injection-date / injection-info / lines / newsgroups / organization / path / summary / supersedes / user-agent / xref ) Corrected Text -------------- optional-field = news-fields = approved / archive / control / distribution / expires / followup-to / injection-date / injection-info / lines / newsgroups / organization / path / summary / supersedes / user-agent / xref optional-field =/ news-fields Notes ----- In Section 3 of RFC5536, the ABNF syntax provided does not do what is clearly intended. What is specified is: fields =/ *( approved / archive / control / distribution / expires / followup-to / injection-date / injection-info / lines / newsgroups / organization / path / summary / supersedes / user-agent / xref ) and that extends RFC5322: fields = *(trace *optional-field / *(resent-date / resent-from / resent-sender / resent-to / resent-cc / resent-bcc / resent-msg-id)) *(orig-date / from / sender / reply-to / to / cc / bcc / message-id / in-reply-to / references / subject / comments / keywords / optional-field) message = (fields / obs-fields) [CRLF body] The problem is with the way things are grouped. Let me give a simpler example: foo = *("a" / "b") / *("c" / "d") This means the following are valid: ab aabb bab cd ccdd dcd But the following are not: abcd ac I think it is clear that the latter is intended to be valid, for which the syntax would be: foo = *("a" / "b" / "c" / "d") The above fix is based on discussion with Pete Resnick (editor of RFC 5322), Julien ÉLIE, Alexey Melnikov and Paul Kyzivat. Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC5536 (draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-12) -------------------------------------- Title : Netnews Article Format Publication Date : November 2009 Author(s) : K. Murchison, Ed., C. Lindsey, D. Kohn Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Usenet Article Standard Update Area : Applications Stream : IETF From nobody Wed Sep 27 10:23:58 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: usefor@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: usefor@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58E6E134E98; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:23:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 9MrMQjKQ2wi7; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:23:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C345B134E90; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:23:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id B684BB80379; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:23:23 -0700 (PDT) To: pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu, murch@andrew.cmu.edu, chl@clerew.man.ac.uk, dan@dankohn.com X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php From: RFC Errata System Cc: aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, iesg@ietf.org, usefor@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Message-Id: <20170927172323.B684BB80379@rfc-editor.org> Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:23:23 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: Subject: [usefor] [Errata Verified] RFC5536 (5116) X-BeenThere: usefor@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of usefor issues." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:23:52 -0000 The following errata report has been verified for RFC5536, "Netnews Article Format". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5116 -------------------------------------- Status: Verified Type: Technical Reported by: Paul Kyzivat Date Reported: 2017-09-14 Verified by: Alexey Melnikov (IESG) Section: 3 Original Text ------------- fields =/ *( approved / archive / control / distribution / expires / followup-to / injection-date / injection-info / lines / newsgroups / organization / path / summary / supersedes / user-agent / xref ) Corrected Text -------------- optional-field = news-fields = approved / archive / control / distribution / expires / followup-to / injection-date / injection-info / lines / newsgroups / organization / path / summary / supersedes / user-agent / xref optional-field =/ news-fields Notes ----- In Section 3 of RFC5536, the ABNF syntax provided does not do what is clearly intended. What is specified is: fields =/ *( approved / archive / control / distribution / expires / followup-to / injection-date / injection-info / lines / newsgroups / organization / path / summary / supersedes / user-agent / xref ) and that extends RFC5322: fields = *(trace *optional-field / *(resent-date / resent-from / resent-sender / resent-to / resent-cc / resent-bcc / resent-msg-id)) *(orig-date / from / sender / reply-to / to / cc / bcc / message-id / in-reply-to / references / subject / comments / keywords / optional-field) message = (fields / obs-fields) [CRLF body] The problem is with the way things are grouped. Let me give a simpler example: foo = *("a" / "b") / *("c" / "d") This means the following are valid: ab aabb bab cd ccdd dcd But the following are not: abcd ac I think it is clear that the latter is intended to be valid, for which the syntax would be: foo = *("a" / "b" / "c" / "d") It isn't easy to do a valid syntax extension that achieves this effect because of way the ABNF of RFC5322 is structured. However, after offline discussion, we realized that RFC5322 already has an extension point for new headers via the rule. Along with that, RFC3864 established a process for registering header fields with IANA. The above fix is based on discussion with Pete Resnick (editor of RFC 5322), Julien ÉLIE, Alexey Melnikov and Paul Kyzivat. An alternative fix from Paul Kyzuvat is: So, my recommendation is that to fix this, remove from section 3 the extension of the rule: fields =/ *( approved / ... xref ) Instead, simply rely on the text to specify the newly defined header fields, and the IANA registration to link them to RFC5322. -------------------------------------- RFC5536 (draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-12) -------------------------------------- Title : Netnews Article Format Publication Date : November 2009 Author(s) : K. Murchison, Ed., C. Lindsey, D. Kohn Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Usenet Article Standard Update Area : Applications Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG