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

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

> Your assessment of what I'm arguing is wrong.
> 
> I raised an issue.  I haven't stated my own view of what the outcome should be.

Ah, thanks for helping me understand your input.

>> I just checked, 17 published RFCs (beyond RFC 7405 itself) use %s”…”, in 249 lines of ABNF.
>> Among these heavyweights such as RFC 9110 (HTTP semantics) and RFC 9112 (the text-based variant of HTTP).
> 
> This says that the enhancement is used.  But you did not, for example, compare this number against the total number of RFCs using ABNF.  Or is the 401 count, you listed at the end of your note, the 'total' number we should compare against?

401 is the number I could quickly produce.
This is approximately the number of RFCs using ABNF since RFC 5234 was published.
That time span is very roughly twice the time since RFC 7405 was published, which would be the more interesting number.
Assuming the publication rate is about constant, some 17 out of ~ 200 specs opted in for RFC 7405, so about 10 %.

(I can produce more reliable numbers if I know what statistics we are looking for.)

> And while percentage of specs is probably a useful indicator, something closer to percentage of actual use would be much better, of course.
> 
> Note that I did not challenge the original assertion that the enhancement has widespread adoption.

I would actually be even more interested in a tally of ABNF implementations and their RFC 7405 support.
I know that bap supports RFC 7405, as does my own implementation of ABNF.
As Paul notes, RFC 7405 support really is almost trivial to implement as an addition, so an implementation that doesn’t, likely is one that hasn’t received a lot of attention in the last 5 years or so.

As Paul notes, adding RFC 7405 to STD 68 could help reach the corners that haven’t noticed RFC 7405 yet.

Grüße, Carsten