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

I have an additional question to think of:

Does adding 7405 to STD 68 improves in a way existing compatibility ? Do 
we have an issue to fix that this action will fix?

On Tue, 19 Dec 2023, Dave Crocker wrote:

> On 12/19/2023 12:40 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> Apart from that, is there anything that is getting in the way of promoting 
>> STD 7405 to be part of STD 68?
>
> Widespread adoption is a good indicator that standards status is appropriate 
> for a specification.
>
> Combining specifications is a different matter.
>
> The issue is whether it is a good idea to make the mandatory core of a 
> specification bigger and more complex?
>
> That is, while the two specifications here might each be widely used, is it 
> reasonable to impose a burden on all implementations that they implement 
> both?
>
> Simply adding 7405 to STD 68 will make it a requirement that all engines 
> claiming to do ABNF must support this feature.  Is that reasonable?
>
> d/
>
> -- 
> Dave Crocker
> dcrocker@gmail.com
> mast:@dcrocker@mastodon.social
> 408.329.0791
>
> Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
> Information & Planning Coordinator
> American Red Cross
> dave.crocker2@redcross.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> art mailing list
> art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claudio Allocchio             G   A   R   R          Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it
                        Senior Manager and Advisor
tel: +39 040 3758523      Italian Academic and       G=Claudio; S=Allocchio;
fax: +39 040 3758565        Research Network         P=garr; A=garr; C=it;

      PGP Key: https://www.cert.garr.it/servizi/informazioni-su-pgp-keys