John C Klensin wrote: > The "Last" in "Last Call" needs to mean something
"Your *last* chance wrt this document", rare cases of appeals and repeated Last Calls not withstanding. > It is not an accident that HT is still prohibited > in addresses. After RFC.klensin-net-utf8 was approved (14:04:33) I'll consider this as fait accompli in 60 days. Now 2822upd has to get rid of it, it makes no sense to forbid HT in 2821bis and to allow HT in 2822upd. Ideally it is a semantical instead of a syntactical problem, we could say that any FWS actually stands for a single space. But everybody expects <quoted-string> to mean what is quoted *as is*. The 2822upd theory is that it means what it says modulo <quoted-pair>s, minus the leading backslashes of <quoted-pair>. In practice RFC 2617, RFC 2831, RFC.usefor-usefor, and anything building on it use a <qdstr-val>, i.e. keep also <quoted-pair> *as is*. Alexey's 2831bis I-Ds proposed to "fix" <qdstr-val>, but after nobody produced the time-machine for also fixing RFC 2069 gave up on this idea. And on the URI list somebody proposed years ago to get rid of these weird backslashes at least in tag URLs, but the tag + mailto + news-nntp URI authors declined, IIRC. IMO that reduces the 2822upd <quoted-pair> theory to "maybe user agents displaying a <quoted-string> get it right". This issue is critical, it could affect DKIM canonicalizations or mailto-bis or RFCs sitting in the RFC editor queue. Frank
