[Python-Dev] Obsoleted RFCs

Stephen J. Turnbull stephen at xemacs.org
Sat Jun 8 18:18:47 CEST 2013

Serhiy Storchaka writes:
 > 08.06.13 11:23, Benjamin Peterson написав(ла):
 > > 2013/6/8 Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka at 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.

[1]  http://tools.ietf.org/html/std11

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list