IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [abnf-discuss] Should RFC 7405 be part of STD 68 now?

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 19 December 2023 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: abnf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: abnf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2630FC1AE95D for <abnf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 07:48:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NrvWWbRuGWal for <abnf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 07:48:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A44ACC14F5F7 for <abnf-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 07:47:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (p548dcbf2.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.203.242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Svh0q0y9LzDCdg; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 16:47:55 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.300.61.1.2\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <600b6af9-b128-4013-9feb-ab7d41e240a6@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 16:47:44 +0100
Cc: abnf-discuss@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1BE89104-D347-44FC-B273-87476AF1B1EC@tzi.org>
References: <4DD498CF-63E6-48E6-A75A-6E72B72F372E@tzi.org> <5f14c9b7-cefc-40fb-b05a-e63a60d01e02@alum.mit.edu> <C519D2EF-82C0-4A1F-BD4E-1B698E9A270F@tzi.org> <600b6af9-b128-4013-9feb-ab7d41e240a6@alum.mit.edu>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.300.61.1.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/abnf-discuss/0bOIZkIf6KoZ8LbofOXAulXS7bc>
Subject: Re: [abnf-discuss] Should RFC 7405 be part of STD 68 now?
X-BeenThere: abnf-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "General discussion about tools, activities and capabilities involving the ABNF meta-language" <abnf-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/abnf-discuss>, <mailto:abnf-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/abnf-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:abnf-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:abnf-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abnf-discuss>, <mailto:abnf-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 15:48:05 -0000

> AFAIK there have never been any problems or concerns.

Good to know.
(It would have surprised me.)

> […] I was motivated to do it in part because RFC4566 (SDP) had many case sensitive string values specified as hex constants. It was unpleasant to read. In RFC8866 (bis revision to 4566) I was able to replace those with case sensitive string constants. The result is more readable.

That is exactly the perspective I have, as an avid user of ABNF, and exactly my experience.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email