RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

RFC 5322, "Internet Message Format", October 2008

Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUP
Area Assignment: app

Errata ID: 3675
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported By: David Hoerl
Date Reported: 2013-06-29
Rejected by: Pete Resnick
Date Rejected: 2013-07-08

Section 3 says:

3.2.3.  Atom Says:

   dot-atom        =   [CFWS] dot-atom-text [CFWS]

3.2.4.  Quoted Strings (but superseded by Errata 3135) Says:

   quoted-string   =   [CFWS]
                       DQUOTE ((1*([FWS] qcontent) [FWS]) / FWS) DQUOTE
                       [CFWS]

3.4.1.  Addr-Spec Specification Says:

   addr-spec       =   local-part "@" domain

   local-part      =   dot-atom / quoted-string / obs-local-part

   domain          =   dot-atom / domain-literal / obs-domain

   domain-literal  =   [CFWS] "[" *([FWS] dtext) [FWS] "]" [CFWS]

It should say:

3.2.3.  Atom

   dot-atom        =   [CFWS] dot-atom-text [CFWS]

   dot-atom-lh     =   [CFWS] dot-atom-text [FWS]

   dot-atom-rh     =   [FWS] dot-atom-text [CFWS]

3.2.4.  Quoted Strings (but superseded by Errata 3135)

   quoted-string   =   [CFWS]
                       DQUOTE ((1*([FWS] qcontent) [FWS]) / FWS) DQUOTE
                       [CFWS]

   quoted-string-lh =  [CFWS]
                       DQUOTE ((1*([FWS] qcontent) [FWS]) / FWS) DQUOTE
                       [FWS]

3.4.1.  Addr-Spec Specification

   addr-spec       =   local-part "@" domain

   local-part      =   dot-atom-lh / quoted-string-lh / obs-local-part

   domain          =   dot-atom-rh / domain-literal / obs-domain

   domain-literal  =   [FWS] "[" *([FWS] dtext) [FWS] "]" [CFWS]

Notes:

Section 3.4.1 states "Comments and folding white space SHOULD NOT be used around the "@" in the addr-spec.", yet the ABNF specifically allows it without recourse to obsoleted terms. Given that the above statement is in fact correct, then the current ABNF should be modified as shown to reflect the above statement.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
The DRUMS Working Group made a conscious decision at the time of writing 2822 that they preferred clarity and ease of understanding of the ABNF at the expense of shift-reduce conflicts and other things that had to be limited in the text descriptions of the syntax, and that assumption carried over into 5322. This is one of those cases. While more precise, the correction is not what was intended, and there are many other cases where the text limits the more free syntax.

Report New Errata