Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07

["t.petch" <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexey Melnikov" <[e-mail]>
To: "Mark Nottingham" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "IETF Apps Discuss" <[e-mail]>;
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 12:14 AM

> On 07/12/2011 09:07, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > Thanks for the feedback. Responses inline.
> >
> > On 07/12/2011, at 2:18 PM, Jiankang YAO wrote:
> >> I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer
> >> for this draft (for background on appsdir, please
> >> see
> >> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate
> >> ).
> >> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> >> you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document
> >> shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> >>
> >> Document: draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07
> >> Title: URI Template
> >>
> >> Reviewer: Jiankang Yao
> >> Review Date: December 7, 2011
> >>
> >> Summary:
> >>
> >> This draft is almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. But
before publication, the following
> >> issues should be considered or addressed.
> >>
> >> Major issues:
> >>
> >>
> >> 1) In section 1.5.  Notational Conventions
> >>
> >> There is a repetition of definition of ALPHA, DIGIT, HEXDIG,......
> >>
> >> There is a discussion in IETF: we should not give the repetition of
definition of ABNF syntax if we can refer it to other documents. The reason is
that repetition may bring the errors or misunderstanding.
> >>
> >> Suggestion: for example, we just say "ALPHA, DIGIT are imported from
RFC5234" instead of repeating
> >> "ALPHA          =  %x41-5A / %x61-7A   ; A-Z / a-z"
> > Is this a discussion that's already taken place?
> By copying definitions from other specs (instead of referencing them),
> you are risking introducing new errors and also risking that your
> document will not be updated when the referenced documents are updated.
>
> My personal preference is not to copy definitions, but there is no hard
> rule on this.

I am with Roy on this one - keep it in.

Tom Petch