IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-eai-rfc5337bis-dsn-1

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Sun, 12 December 2010 21:57 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 B28693A6E74 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:57:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.072
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.072 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.527, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 fLTviKxItMDI for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:57:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A583C3A6E62 for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:57:47 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: ams-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmAEADfUBE2Q/khLgWdsb2JhbACDXKAqFQEBFiIppgmKSY9RgSGDNXQEink
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,333,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="71478366"
Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Dec 2010 21:59:23 +0000
Received: from ams3-vpn-dhcp4641.cisco.com (ams3-vpn-dhcp4641.cisco.com [10.61.82.32]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oBCLxN3J014633; Sun, 12 Dec 2010 21:59:23 GMT
Message-ID: <4D0545C5.5040608@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 22:59:33 +0100
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)" <lyndon@orthanc.ca>
References: <252f1508ca393ec830c24fdf94d19cb5@gandalf.orthanc.ca>
In-Reply-To: <252f1508ca393ec830c24fdf94d19cb5@gandalf.orthanc.ca>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5337bis-dsn@tools.ietf.org, discuss@apps.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, apps-review@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-eai-rfc5337bis-dsn-1
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: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 21:57:49 -0000

On 12/12/10 10:48 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) wrote:
> The base IMAP RFC (3501) made this construct easy and (I think)
> relatively obvious.  YMMV.  If a grammar extension is globally
> applicable to a parent specification, I think the subject document
> reads easier if the extension is called out at the top of the grammar,
> rather than littering each ABNF element with a callout comment.  The
> alternatives can get very noisy, especially if there is multiple
> inheritance involved.

I take your point but then if you are calling out multiple
specifications someone has to go on a fishing expedition to understand
perhaps the single definition they want out of a specification.

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email