Re: [apps-discuss] draft-kucherawy-rfc5451bis

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Wed, 03 April 2013 18:58 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B187221F8A6D for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 11:58:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TZwbrXQq1Yta for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 11:58:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x22e.google.com (mail-we0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B532121F8A3F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 11:58:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f174.google.com with SMTP id u12so1442086wey.19 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:58:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=N2du5pCa2ZtmX351hit5PNg9QV3j3YKaGSZfIb3KXE4=; b=lMYwJ/19vCtsNPhpKyogzodQDbWgtis8CBFNe4jprO0/6v3lvsB05P+XOp+CARBUfT Uzsg8qhw4HF9TDB/M4CGp2mX66NTf9gvjoQfVkx5ZHlXCzm9NSKC7fFyFDKHgy/M+Urm cq/IsHkniI9bepcA/GpYyBYEQIdklDnkDLXSnHeVIMwwFTGVwqtIVmXDSmioZUHeUdq1 yQwIVxaaML/Ca0+w5r0czQCBJe4et2GwdBBiej62aGeHbe2GqHjNWbUAOgKAT3L9Wx7e EzZOYFvsEsp/Qy1BDSH+6aOww1g8/ZEKY5fRGrIep9cEyM2gCiR8Cuy80zLvUYraClMd h4Sw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.74.67 with SMTP id r3mr24371941wiv.14.1365015530688; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:58:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.36.176 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 11:58:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKHUCzw5K3BHaWOk4GivJ-9tLvjo9v8exo=A0i8z3GeWdoQ8GQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwbgjnt8Msofok3ExKBmChtQPfMEFgrrZBimEzU5CYgSjA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKHUCzxfBtLTt3p3moGgEQx+p5kr=-e2Mn58xaqNvWFGiW=Lpw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwY=VLkUZ7KMenj_ORQDwLOSdFS=x+q0a3N2KcxaT9q=Gw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKHUCzw5K3BHaWOk4GivJ-9tLvjo9v8exo=A0i8z3GeWdoQ8GQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 11:58:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwa1Bf6rNbxabjhhBPVUTs2zJPyO+5p--sDagDXbDzfraQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0438914dd1d76d04d9797195
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] draft-kucherawy-rfc5451bis
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:58:52 -0000

Submitting draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis now, with changes in response to
your feedback as follows:

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> wrote:

> However, you have in -04's ABNF (with much elided):
>
>      authres-header = "Authentication-Results:" [CFWS] authserv-id
>               [ [CFWS] "/" [CFWS] version ]
>               ( [CFWS] ";" [CFWS] "none" / 1*resinfo ) [CFWS] CRLF
>             ; the special case of "none" is used to indicate that no
>             ; message authentication is performed
>
>      version = 1*DIGIT [CFWS]
>              ; indicates which version of this specification is in use;
>              ; this specification is version "1", and the absence of a
>              ; version implies this version of the specification
>
>
>      method = Keyword [ [CFWS] "/" [CFWS] version ]
>             ; a method indicates which method's result is
>             ; represented by "result", and is one of the methods
>             ; explicitly defined as valid in this document
>             ; or is an extension method as defined below
>
> The conflation of the two different versions into one is (I find)
> confusing, though §2.4 goes a long way to correcting that - perhaps far
> enough, but I remain uneasy.
>
> I think your choices are:
> [...]
>
> b) Introduce two different productions, one for "authres-version" and one
> for "method-version", such that:
> [...]
>

> Using (b) gives you the option of using those terms in §2.4 (and elsewhere
> as needed) to clarify which version you mean you mean, too.
>
> Obviously I'd rather you didn't do (d), but I'll accept it if you do. :-)
>

(b) will appear in the first Working Group version, which I'm about to
post.  Thanks for the suggestion.

-MSK