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

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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