IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 19 December 2023 08:41 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 C81DFC151069; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 00:41:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] 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 SL3800At9gbI; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 00:41:06 -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 947F7C14F5F6; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 00:41:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eduroam-0160.wlan.uni-bremen.de (eduroam-0160.wlan.uni-bremen.de [134.102.16.160]) (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 4SvVXB12CgzDCjl; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 09:40:58 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 09:40:57 +0100
Cc: ART Area <art@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 724668057.6915261-c325d687c04d2ca7361d6f0d911fab1f
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Reply-To: abnf-discuss@ietf.org
Message-Id: <4DD498CF-63E6-48E6-A75A-6E72B72F372E@tzi.org>
To: abnf-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/abnf-discuss/ekTonLiF__SNw6ETel5jwPK1KkQ>
Subject: [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 08:41:10 -0000

Currently, STD 68 (ABNF) only comprises RFC 5234, not RFC 7405 (the case-sensitive strings addition).
As the latter has been out for 9 years now and seems to be widely implemented, is it time to promote it to be part of STD 68 as well?

RFC 7405 has one errata report [1], which needs to be rejected (it is suggesting to instead use one of two rather different solutions — this is not what errata reports are for).

Apart from that, is there anything that is getting in the way of promoting STD 7405 to be part of STD 68?

(CCing art@, but please reply-to abnf-discuss@.)

Grüße, Carsten


[1]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5334

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email