Re: [apps-discuss] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7601 (4671)

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

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:05 AM, RFC Errata System <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Corrected Text
> --------------
>    The "ptype" in the ABNF above indicates the general type of property
>    being described by the value being reported, upon which the reported
>    result was based.  Coupled with the "property", which is more
>    specific, they indicate from which particular part of the message the
>    reported "pvalue"s were extracted.
>
>
>
> Notes
> -----
> The original text can be understood in multiple ways, depending on the
> meaning attributed to the term "result".  The corrected text I submit is
> one of the possible interpretations.  Note that if the first appearance of
> the term is assumed to be the ABNF "result", then ptype becomes an
> attribute of method, thereby setting a limit of one ptype per resinfo, as
> coincidentally it actually is.
>

Though it would be nice if there was some more obvious way to disambiguate
other than renaming the tokens into non-words, I note that the quoted
strings in both the original and corrected versions refer to ABNF tokens,
however "result" is not quoted, and doesn't refer to the ABNF.

As for the correction, to be more grammatically correct, I would use:

-- BEGIN --
The "ptype" in the ABNF above indicates the general type of property being
described by the value being reported, upon which the reported result was
based.  Coupled with the "property", which is more specific, it indicates
from which particular part of the message the "pvalue" was extracted.
-- END --

Otherwise, the suggestion seems fine to me, though I disagree with the
characterization that there's a limit of one ptype per resinfo.  There's
nothing precluding the existence of a method that bases its result on two
distinct ptype/properties, or chooses to report none, for example.

-MSK