IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> Tue, 19 December 2023 15:10 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@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 0B294C18FCC7; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 07:10:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] 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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qVLVZu18Ju6Z; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 07:10:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x433.google.com (mail-pf1-x433.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::433]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 D92B2C15107C; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 07:10:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x433.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-6d7395ab92cso1448318b3a.2; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 07:10:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1702998637; x=1703603437; darn=ietf.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=PVFbsUnudVjzp7PaBnMYHkXrNRcYu/dt3IkSF1sypcw=; b=GWX8mGz0BnqOabvauGzagwVmLUNnwESA9RYaONQGmo/7p7FdIDPOZMGehq5xdi78Av TTf5G3H4WUBgf9TQcYSPTgYN/Nu4taPWG/d6DD2qfdnH89yn0H+EXQ/fewlg9Qb5Y0mC FqF9oENrg4CBE8Boi1Ji36ApwGMATIWkm4n63qdB8RYuKg285nXHK6PQbQI3YZqQy85A c12qf9enj51pBWJtx0Cg9awd+X7dY4laF0J0uGuB0VbT0WyUmmrfX/ffuUvGTpUnFZS0 4oa75UniP4cDuDcyQrWAqPqdjShIxnfyAGwUj179b+R7DgaKczIp3bm/kCjP7Ql4CzU1 WkYw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1702998637; x=1703603437; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=PVFbsUnudVjzp7PaBnMYHkXrNRcYu/dt3IkSF1sypcw=; b=oD62uWf6FzwS4l9izqnok8KT0iWVsqv+x26/MD21pl9fShjRZpvo56RrSH0fiSGmjD 2Zm2njZlErDUqnpz0O5LT4FsL0CX4K+8lrV031IrvIwi5WTrBzjoL81kKMwwFPvnCHzy r+LYw5rgnHpGDLtcVlEZjXPWqTdf6//uIdB4LZfPjPm3S+2ks0KayVZhMqSfLMI+ObcD VaxBHul5nkXg0LCXr8CVe0ObV3PNG6V2+GHRe5FU+8BOJ5Ln05EQ7nuDKRIR0uUp2Pww qr0DNoChby42HwhgtG3slW5dMmjZDC+SWbWRbrevfL6yIbd8GQeDbqsbkN1lksOMgzbQ i2AA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwVhYvJp0K8y1fT4gRByg3P0AGuRQV8N1/rddjN3Q5Ac6WAFEIs P5fDRanTm1JdSmcH+0gNkv4as7utjen8ZQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEJ46GAykx7onmN/F1nu+Xb7SqCm6iIH0WAQ50tzdTCYu723JHkyGqdK9NRICoMsS45Wfqd0w==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:88c:b0:6d0:8895:2cf with SMTP id q12-20020a056a00088c00b006d0889502cfmr9925816pfj.33.1702998636724; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 07:10:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.103] (c-98-42-225-165.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [98.42.225.165]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c17-20020aa78811000000b006c320b9897fsm4963460pfo.126.2023.12.19.07.10.36 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 19 Dec 2023 07:10:36 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <aa439241-3834-459f-a6bc-d7907e398566@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 07:10:36 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: abnf-discuss@ietf.org, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Cc: ART Area <art@ietf.org>
References: <4DD498CF-63E6-48E6-A75A-6E72B72F372E@tzi.org>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DD498CF-63E6-48E6-A75A-6E72B72F372E@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/abnf-discuss/yev_HV2RoqcAzBpI0lWUUgLhuT4>
Subject: Re: [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 15:10:40 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email