Subject: [yam] #4: RFC 1652 ABNF

From: "yam issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:38:15 -0000

#4: RFC 1652 ABNF
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
 Reporter:  sm+ietf@…                  |       Owner:     
     Type:  defect                     |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major                      |   Milestone:     
Component:  rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation  |     Version:     
 Severity:  Waiting for Expert Review  |    Keywords:     
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
 Comment about ABNF in RFC 1652 posted by Ned Freed on 2 Nov 2009

 For starters, the reference to RFC 822 in RFC 1652 is for ABNF and nothing
 else, so it upgrades cleanly to RFC 5234 - already a Standard, no downref
 needed. There's no need to reference RFC 5322 for this purpose at all.

 I'll also take this opportunity to point out that this is actually an
 error in draft-ietf-yam-rfc1652bis-pre-evaluation-00, which states that
 what needs to be done is update the reference to RFC 5322.

 As for the reference to RFC 821, the purpose of it is to get at the
 definition of what's allowed in a message. I don't think a credible
 argument can be made that the definition of the overall syntax of a basic
 message (i.e., 998 chearacter or less CRLF delimited lines of 7bit ASCII),
 is ever going to change. Pigs will travel at lightspeed first.

 Finally there's the reference to RFC 1651. The plan is to replace this
 with a reference to RFC 5321, which is a fine plan, but if that's a
 downref issue then a reference to RFC 1651 - a Full Standard - could
 simply be retained.

 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00149.html

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/yam/trac/ticket/4>
yam <http://tools.ietf.org/yam/>