IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] draft-yevstifeyev-abnf-separated-lists-01.txt

"Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com> Thu, 09 December 2010 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <Martin.Thomson@andrew.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 86B9828C131 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 14:31:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.434
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.434 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.135, BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_OFF=2.3]
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 BgKOkYG2yuVt for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 14:31:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from csmailgw1.commscope.com (csmailgw1.commscope.com [198.135.207.244]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8688228C122 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 14:31:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.86.20.103] ([10.86.20.103]:5833 "EHLO ACDCE7HC2.commscope.com") by csmailgw1.commscope.com with ESMTP id S39931994Ab0LIWdT (ORCPT <rfc822; apps-discuss@ietf.org>); Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:33:19 -0600
Received: from SISPE7HC1.commscope.com (10.97.4.12) by ACDCE7HC2.commscope.com (10.86.20.103) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.436.0; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:33:19 -0600
Received: from SISPE7MB1.commscope.com ([fe80::9d82:a492:85e3:a293]) by SISPE7HC1.commscope.com ([fe80::8a9:4724:f6bb:3cdf%10]) with mapi; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 06:33:14 +0800
From: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 06:33:12 +0800
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] draft-yevstifeyev-abnf-separated-lists-01.txt
Thread-Index: AcuW/1vKTlJlhUbKTzWN/RXOyBlfKwA8Kckw
Message-ID: <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03F347E79F@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com>
References: <4CFC4694.5070408@att.com> <AANLkTimX4B3WTYaPS5mj+GjcNYYvKf3MpB8SB0TwA_dm@mail.gmail.com> <4CFCF71C.4050908@att.com> <4CFD0B37.7010601@gmail.com> <4CFD1238.4090902@gmail.com> <AANLkTinxjDqLus-+b1bMOxQMEgmiF4KfJeTCyN7yOsdf@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=YDrLapDLEsw0561wZkZd8MmQ9vtJ1dtvqH+vX@mail.gmail.com> <4CFDF3BB.30101@gmx.de> <AANLkTi=wt+mSzcRmUS4K5WHOmWjbJiNNLawrrpDDgOpR@mail.gmail.com> <4CFFC3A2.5050301@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CFFC3A2.5050301@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BCN: Meridius 1000 Version 3.4 on csmailgw1.commscope.com
X-BCN-Sender: Martin.Thomson@andrew.com
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Dave CROCKER <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] draft-yevstifeyev-abnf-separated-lists-01.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: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 22:31:50 -0000

Hi Mykyta,

I'd be interested in hearing your response to:

https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=933&k2=54772&tid=1291933409
https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=933&k2=54773&tid=1291933409

This regards the use of LWS, the definition of ABNF for the new construct, and a few other things that you didn't address in this latest revision.

The new BNF seems more correct, though at a price in complexity (and a new syntactical invention).  The definition of 'f' is quite strange, especially since they don't seem to be linked back to n and m.

You don't need to be so rigorous in your definition of the expansion.  I'd prefer to see more rigour devoted to the ABNF for the ABNF.

--Martin


On 2010-12-09 at 04:42:58, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> I have uploaded the new version (-02) of my draft
> for ABNF for separated lists.
> 
> Here is the link:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yevstifeyev-abnf-separated-
> lists/?include_text=1
> 
> Among other, there is updated ABNF for defined
> construction which is OK for cases when n = 0,
> n >= 1 and other cases.
> 
> Any suggestions are welcome.
> 
> All the best,
> Mykyta Yevstifeyev
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email