Re: [abnf-discuss] Target audience for ABNF

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 20 November 2017 17:45 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 CEC79129C4D for <abnf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 09:45:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id quEJ3FDGot_z for <abnf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 09:45:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EDA712E040 for <abnf-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 09:45:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::b]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vAKHjJLf004865; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 18:45:19 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.217.119] (p5DC7FC78.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.199.252.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3ygbhv4KpgzDXXj; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 18:45:19 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <b44a3940-9317-07e8-ba4e-2e6e0d92f800@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 18:45:18 +0100
Cc: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>, abnf-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 532892718.591879-2fc6f67018b1d6b0b0d819749ba41866
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <87E95822-E99C-4C86-A699-6B2FBFC8A6E7@tzi.org>
References: <97E6D6C0-7010-46D6-8641-670F10A2504C@seantek.com> <3fbd228d-c6cf-be73-c7f2-f6b15979b852@gmail.com> <477FA5E8-FBAA-47D4-98A6-79DBAE4498C7@tzi.org> <7db503ef-3db4-9a72-6d14-001831742600@gmail.com> <62B9A765-E6EE-4C20-9A4E-58ADA9FDE975@seantek.com> <c10a79f2-5e42-fc00-ed5a-4459064b5af4@gmail.com> <6BF6E482-7EAD-4564-B273-44ADC13E7375@tzi.org> <b979026d-cb07-ad36-58ab-1ba82c0e8263@alum.mit.edu> <f370948e-b738-06fd-7d39-82bf068499f4@gmail.com> <c6e9c6df-0b35-a4df-57ef-8c04e9637acf@alum.mit.edu> <4D0B3FB6-988B-4772-B0AB-C6FA22D7E102@tzi.org> <b44a3940-9317-07e8-ba4e-2e6e0d92f800@alum.mit.edu>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/abnf-discuss/f5gz95P0XVjdq7cnwMFc3_ThnCw>
Subject: Re: [abnf-discuss] Target audience for ABNF
X-BeenThere: abnf-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 17:45:30 -0000

Hi Paul,

I think these are good observations for a future FDT (ABNFplus :-) or CDDL 2.0).

> Yes, and I gather that is what is being planned for the future. This will work ok if the ABNF is complete and self contained. But there are large numbers of important RFCs where it isn't, and in a practical sense can't be. For instance RFC6665 is an extension to RFC3261. It includes the following as a prelude to the ABNF it includes:
> 
>   The Augmented BNF [RFC5234] definitions for the various new and
>   modified syntax elements follows.  The notation is as used in
>   [RFC3261], and any elements not defined in this section are as
>   defined in SIP and the documents to which it refers.

Of course, YANG solves this by defining an import/export interface.
ABNF could grow a convention that makes something like

> 	foo = <defined in RFCxxxx>

actually well-defined.
(We have discussed this for CDDL and didn’t want to include this in this round.)

> Another issue is that there is ambiguity about the status of the Core Rules defined in RFC5234. Can anyone writing an ABNF grammar assume that the core rules are predefined for their use? Or must the grammar indicate specifically (how?) that it is implicitly including their definitions? If they are automatically present, then they are reserved rule names, and cannot be defined differently in any ABNF grammar.

Right.  In CDDL, we have a defined “prelude” that is added to all specifications, effectively becoming a set of reserved names.  ABNF could use the above convention with RFC 5234 as the source, or grow a wholesale “import RFC5234” style statement.

Grüße, Carsten