On Mon 2019-01-14 16:43:15 -0500, John Levine wrote: > To show that you read it, please include the first word in the text > on page 50 or RFC 5321 in your reply.
I'm sorry to spoil it for everyone that the word is "The" :P
John, i think you're talking about (ab)using the Domain variant of the
TCP-info variant of Extended-Domain in the By-domain expansion of Stamp.
While the Domain part of that ABNF doesn't describe how it's supposed to
be derived from "Information derived by server from TCP connection" for
the BY clause specifically, i think using it for SNI is entirely
reasonable.
Many implementations don't even use the TCP-info variant for the BY
clause. for example, from a copy of a message i received on this
thread:
Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org [4.31.198.44])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by foo.example.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS
for <[email protected]>; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 15:22:20 -0500 (EST)
the BY clause here just uses Extended-Domain as Domain (no TCP-info at
all), and "(Postfix)" is just a Comment.
> As anyone who has looked at RFC 5321 should know, that's a comment.
> You can put anything in a comment, but downstream code can't parse it
> reliably.
Hm, you'd need to read RFC 5322 to get to the definition of CFWS to know
that's a comment, not just RFC 5321 :P
I know that you're frustrated, but please be gentler with people who
don't have as much in-depth knowledge of the RFCs as you do.
I really appreciate the specific pointers you've given in this thread.
Regards,
--dkg
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
