Serhiy Storchaka writes: > 08.06.13 11:23, Benjamin Peterson написав(ла): > > 2013/6/8 Serhiy Storchaka <storch...@gmail.com>: > >> Here is attached a list of obsoleted RFCs referred in the *.rst, > >> *.txt, *.py, *.c and *.h files. I think it would be worthwhile > >> to update the source code and documentation for more modern > >> RFCs. > > > > Just because you change the reference, doesn't mean the code is > > automatically compliant with the updated RFC. :) > > Of course. Maintainers should review his modules and conclude what > should be made for supporting more modern RFCs.
I suspect in many cases the answer is going to be "nothing". Grepping out the references and checking for obsoleted RFCs is useful information, of course. Good GSoC fodder, for one thing. But I'd be cautious about even creating an issue without consideration of each case individually. This can be a *lot* of work, for very little gain. In the case of mail, consider that STD 11 still points to RFC 822![1] Also, even the most modern RFC 5322 REQUIREs parsers to accept the "obsolete" syntax of section 4, which I believe is that of RFC 822. In any case, it's pretty close. So you wouldn't want to change the parser anyway. Whether it would be worth auditing the generative functions for 5322 conformance, and creating tests, is a more difficult question, but it still sounds like much work for little gain. The analysis is surely different for other RFCs, but for this particular series I see little harm in letting each component of the email module continue to explicitly target whichever of the RFCs happened to be current when its author started coding. Footnotes: [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/std11 _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com