IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [abnf-discuss] constrained-01 - advantage?

Doug Royer <douglasroyer@gmail.com> Fri, 18 November 2016 17:50 UTC

Return-Path: <douglasroyer@gmail.com>
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 0E7991293F4 for <abnf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 09:50:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 yuUnRoNK-Gla for <abnf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 09:50:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x235.google.com (mail-oi0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3738412944B for <abnf-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 09:50:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x235.google.com with SMTP id 128so96482568oih.0 for <abnf-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 09:50:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=H+EbK3/FYb69l6EgcaOuQZlHx1oeTg7iKdJAwSoDWbM=; b=NgQXQIgJC6I6aSun1bZw+rehynH7vAB92SVulAVrmp9w4RPw8EFgtgILo1vtWIU9ZX UAyaEcys2VN60NwDaapfN3t/Cq1C/fWXfYSiKbZ0B5DQ10aAOPkDmQ0XMzN7tLD9+//7 O7Rh7aSaQPIrh0fCLzB/6o/KnMY7fzSpmgm6aEKMgs2Xy2bFonnHw46/Lh2oXzraG9dy KcKgznW6Jn+WwrHmxajx08yBB6jqlPfvN9DMV8J+W3LgUzSB+8EgvVfo/Bss2quEleNt fFjx+FFmV6YA4uC6YISbOA/kK/mXfRzzbywE027hxYc7cTQ2MMkipkrLcLJNbdrq1p1w QNOQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=H+EbK3/FYb69l6EgcaOuQZlHx1oeTg7iKdJAwSoDWbM=; b=LS3BNADpdhZObjXoySGwx5b0w1hoaaD8aXIejuDSreKvjO5KGwjGGD7nHbd0/lCSDy WLpvbhHcaCgEabJWcZf+jzzOGzkO+Gkg61XIirINqUwPYm/6Gwa1fmIBL9Jn7pnSHUnm ML1pRK+ES2VQU0x0m0FwZuuDQ3OgtW2rrVGuWRFq5F8OEzWKhF52c+X0KFK6fw9eB/xu 3e5ZSlsJD339I4kucH+XQ4m2WjIPmn9vsM/Oqp/uxF+BzqRPUeDJThsFNsppuw3WCA52 rLGCVi5QmRmTZXTvzSyc3UdC30Qp6DtRxQBvLYkV9z5KPJ5N3o/sBOpAmb1I0li09yjl 6OJA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC02Q14bcYCmnvATIFMauPuv2fzKJ4ujCE64fjmjn4buRcjRURyfvY2VQDx778LE2EA==
X-Received: by 10.202.229.199 with SMTP id c190mr596159oih.175.1479491449427; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 09:50:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.4] (184-99-91-13.boid.qwest.net. [184.99.91.13]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id t78sm2820661oih.19.2016.11.18.09.50.48 for <abnf-discuss@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 18 Nov 2016 09:50:48 -0800 (PST)
To: abnf-discuss@ietf.org
References: <5828DD42.8010009@gmail.com> <36FC0A35-2ADA-4710-ABFB-08E8B916718E@seantek.com> <58292EE9.2040308@gmail.com> <1A928BF2-22AB-4EA1-9DCD-58B6F646259F@seantek.com> <017b01d23e53$7c13b640$743b22c0$@hansfords.net> <8554FBCB-D327-4398-AAE0-DBD513B1FD1D@seantek.com> <02cb01d241b3$4629ed70$d27dc850$@hansfords.net>
From: Doug Royer <douglasroyer@gmail.com>
Organization: http://SoftwareAndServices.NET
Message-ID: <582F3F77.5000501@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 10:50:47 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:43.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/43.0 SeaMonkey/2.40
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <02cb01d241b3$4629ed70$d27dc850$@hansfords.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms070405020306070300060907"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/abnf-discuss/gs8kN6m-sLK-ZlzR7POjm9R6P88>
Subject: Re: [abnf-discuss] constrained-01 - advantage?
X-BeenThere: abnf-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 17:50:53 -0000

I do not have a problem with making ABNF machine parsable.

This draft makes it possible to make ABNF that is still not machine 
parsable. Because the old difficult to parse methods are still valid.

In my opinion, if this draft is going to go forward, this draft will 
need to go much further, because its going to make a confusing mess of 
mixed ABNF usage in future drafts.

And much further, its going to be more controversial.

-- 

Doug Royer - (http://DougRoyer.US)
DouglasRoyer@gmail.com
714-989-6135

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email