Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9399 <draft-ietf-lamps-rfc3709bis-10> for your review

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

I have chased this down, including Errata ID 2045.  The following addresses the concern that was raised about the ABNF.  The NEW ABNF compiles properly using BAP (after you chase down all of the dependencies).

OLD:

   If the logotype image is provided through direct addressing, then the
   image MAY be stored within the logotype certificate extension using
   the "data" scheme [RFC2397].  The syntax of the "data" URI scheme
   defined is included here for convenience:

      dataurl    := "data:" [ mediatype ] [ ";base64" ] "," data
      mediatype  := [ type "/" subtype ] *( ";" parameter )
      data       := *urlchar
      parameter  := attribute "=" value

NEW:

   If the logotype image is provided through direct addressing, then the
   image MAY be stored within the logotype certificate extension using
   the "data" scheme [RFC2397].  The syntax of the "data" URI scheme is
   shown below, which incorporates Errata ID 2045 and uses modern ABNF
   [RFC5234]:

      dataurl    = "data:" [ media-type ] [ ";base64" ] "," data
      data       = *(reserved / unreserved / escaped)
      reserved   = ";" / "/" / "?" / ":" / "@" / "&" / "=" / "+" /
                   "$" / ","
      unreserved = alphanum / mark
      alphanum   = ALPHA / DIGIT
      mark       = "-" / "_" / "." / "!" / "~" / "*" / "'" / "(" / ")"
      escaped    = "%" hex hex
      hex        = HEXDIG / "a" / "b" / "c" / "d" / "e" / "f"

   Where media-type is defined in Section 8.3.1 of [RFC9110]; and
   ALPHA, DIGIT, and HEXDIG are defined in Appendix B.1 of [RFC5234].

Russ


> On Apr 23, 2023, at 5:30 PM, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 23. Apr 2023, at 22:35, Russ Housley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> I think you are pointing out that the optional whitespace is not allowed in the [RFC2397] ABNF.  If you are saying more than that, I am missing it.
> 
> Ah.  I was talking about a different form of BNF notation being used, not about a different grammar expressed in ABNF notation.
> 
> The 989/1049/1341 BNF is using “:=“, where standard (822/2396/2234/5234) ABNF uses “=“.  
> This alone should cause the tools to error out, which they did as Alanna mentioned.
> (The deviant BNF and ABNF otherwise look very similar, but I haven’t even looked for any other gratuitous changes, so I don’t know if there are any more.)
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
>