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

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sun, 12 December 2010 17:15 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 431C83A6DEC; Sun, 12 Dec 2010 09:15:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 VoAuPyNymyLN; Sun, 12 Dec 2010 09:15:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA2653A6DE5; Sun, 12 Dec 2010 09:15:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.2] (ppp-67-124-89-109.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.124.89.109]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oBCHGZi5026913 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 12 Dec 2010 09:16:40 -0800
Message-ID: <4D050373.40406@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 09:16:35 -0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5337bis-dsn@tools.ietf.org
References: <4CFDDD2F.2020201@cisco.com> <4D04FB1A.6030804@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D04FB1A.6030804@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sun, 12 Dec 2010 09:16:41 -0800 (PST)
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, 'IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>, "apps-review@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
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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 17:15:07 -0000

On 12/12/2010 8:40 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> More importantly, the specification makes use of the =/ operator  from RFC
>> 5234, but for constructs that it does not control.  I don't know if this was
>> the original intent or not, but I am a little concerned that use of =/ in a
>> construct that is not wholly controlled by a single specification is asking
>> for confusion later.  This is an optional specification, right?
>
> After discussing this a bit with Dave Crocker, perhaps this problem is all in my
> head.  Therefore, I recommend no change to the spec on this point.


While I believe the current specification's use of =/ is not only legal but that 
it is in fact exactly the sort of use that was intended, I also note that it's a 
pretty unusual ABNF construct and that it might invite some confusion. 
Cross-referencing a rule from another specification strikes me as a big deal and 
that it's worth helping the reader as much as possible.

So I suggest having a citation for the original version of the rule be included 
in a comment associated with the new rule.

For example:

      generic-address =/ utf-8-enc-addr
                        ; updates Section 3.2.3 of [RFC3798]

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net