Re: [apps-discuss] draft-yevstifeyev-abnf-separated-lists-00.txt

Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> Mon, 06 December 2010 16:36 UTC

Return-Path: <tony@att.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCDBD3A6828 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 08:36:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.485
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.113, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dGBPi4wA+XId for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 08:36:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail161.messagelabs.com (mail161.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.115]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5FFE3A681D for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 08:36:54 -0800 (PST)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-2.tower-161.messagelabs.com!1291653251!35334051!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.9; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145]
Received: (qmail 20063 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2010 16:34:36 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-2.tower-161.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 6 Dec 2010 16:34:36 -0000
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oB6GYUtl015421 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 11:34:31 -0500
Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oB6GYPCS015307 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 11:34:25 -0500
Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oB6GY55P002501 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 11:34:05 -0500
Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oB6GY1sx002367 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 11:34:01 -0500
Received: from [135.70.226.222] (vpn-135-70-226-222.vpn.east.att.com[135.70.226.222]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20101206163401gw1004lkl6e> (Authid: tony); Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:34:01 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [135.70.226.222]
Message-ID: <4CFD1078.6030902@att.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 11:34:00 -0500
From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
References: <4CFC4694.5070408@att.com> <AANLkTimX4B3WTYaPS5mj+GjcNYYvKf3MpB8SB0TwA_dm@mail.gmail.com> <4CFCF71C.4050908@att.com> <4CFD0B37.7010601@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CFD0B37.7010601@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000407010009060504000901"
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] draft-yevstifeyev-abnf-separated-lists-00.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 16:36:57 -0000

On 12/6/2010 11:11 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Some answers:
>>>> Your draft is inconsistent. In one place, you use "m" and another 
>>>> place
>>>> you use "o".
>>>>
>>>> I don't see why you use "o" at all -- I recommend you just use "m".
>>> o = m-n as m is maximum and n we have already used as it is mimimum.
>>> So we can use only he differebce between them.
>>
>> We *can*, but that doesn't mean we *should*.
>>
>> Other ABNF constructs use "m" and "n" directly -- they do *not* use 
>> the difference.
>>
>> I think using the difference for this case is just asking for trouble 
>> and will introduce subtle errors in future protocols that use this 
>> construct.
>>
>> Consider the normal 5234 ABNF rule <a>*<b>element. <a> is the minimum 
>> and <b> is the maximum. It is *not* <a>*<b-a>element.
>>
>> The 822 ABNF rule <a>#<b>element, which your rule is updating, also 
>> used the same minimum and maximum values -- it did *not* use the 
>> difference.
> However we MUST use *n* elements and MAY use all more *(m-n)*. If we 
> say that we use the we MAY use more *m*, it is possible that we use 
> *(m+n)* togetger, but we MUST use at most *m* while
> *m+n is not m*

m+n is not m, nor is m-n. The second number that is used is the * and # 
rules is not how many more are allowed beyond the minimum, but really is 
the maximum. That is, 2*3 and 2#3 mean a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 3 
-- it's not a minimum of 2 plus possible 3 more for a maximum of 5.

This rule should do likewise.

>> Note also: your introduction is incorrect. It talks about ABNF having 
>> the # rule. However, it does not. The original 822 ABNF had the # 
>> rule, but it was dropped when ABNF was extracted for the *234 series.
> Maybe I meant the construction form RFC 2616.

That's fine -- say so then.

Note that the #rule in 2616 also uses a minimum of n and a maximum of m 
-- it does not use a difference for the second number.

If you're going to offer this as an update to RFC 5234, you may wish to 
specify that the #rule be added in as well.

     Tony Hansen
     tony@att.com