Re: [bfcpbis] Old comments on RFC 4582

Tom Kristensen <2mkristensen@gmail.com> Thu, 31 May 2012 06:07 UTC

Return-Path: <2mkristensen@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A804121F862B for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 May 2012 23:07:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Soy5j42pp+m5 for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 May 2012 23:07:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13A8221F8628 for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 May 2012 23:07:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbeh20 with SMTP id eh20so955796obb.31 for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 May 2012 23:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hJwNIecJvIe2GL7C68aewWXXJPWhBdmUQl8NyLrAcQU=; b=zWMsyHyVGUcR7WnuSovaP7y6Nl2S030PFKHVHxnbCleOikbwTvHFLBUxR0B3+Pad7Y mqJv8MaNsqlMEiiyukkPSh9vk2aMlGGBEC8jBkfrCcUw8R0o/wxBlMNzUGjz5pHNdZe/ 5qElbb3H9IjCAmDMUxTerqWzqSmZlfBSgFVK22b4kMYcpUQSWpATTmY+x3m7XFkoKDpc jyMRXRVm3yifc0pdapHuJfeNBGuq5da+YeGn+rdcNpYIETmBnPWnijfBhL9uv7KvItqH E29Gpp99RjBUHQI1B3F0+k2vIBzTjk4psxPsaOYidi+CZdY23KwxGoaGZGiUh7B1tq9W O7zQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.72.42 with SMTP id a10mr2535201obv.22.1338444428458; Wed, 30 May 2012 23:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.72.232 with HTTP; Wed, 30 May 2012 23:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4F8BFAB6.2050900@ericsson.com>
References: <4F8BFAB6.2050900@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 08:07:08 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFHv=r9yskMxgQaSn1MCWTq=oMXEucaQyNUney-XpfAMFp-hFA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tom Kristensen <2mkristensen@gmail.com>
To: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Old comments on RFC 4582
X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list <bfcpbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bfcpbis>, <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bfcpbis>
List-Post: <mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis>, <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 06:07:11 -0000

All three comments fixed in upcoming rfc4582bis draft. Will be posted today.

(1) and (2) clarified as suggested by Alfred Hönes below, to achieve a
clearer and consistent usage of ABNF throughout the document.
(3) was a bug and is already fixed in current version. This was
mentioned in the presentation at last IETF in Paris (and verified
later by Gonzalo Camarillo).

-- Tom

On 16/04/2012, Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> below you can find an old thread with comments on RFC 4582 that should
> be fixed in the new revision of the spec.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gonzalo
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: RFC 4582 additional note
> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:55:14 +0200
> From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
> To: Alfred ? <ah@tr-sys.de>
> CC: jo@netlab.hut.fi,  drage@lucent.com
> References: <200612301007.LAA23236@TR-Sys.de>
> <200612301044.LAA23279@TR-Sys.de>
>
> Hi,
>
> good catch. I will also log this comment.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gonzalo
>
> Alfred ? wrote:
>> Hello,
>> in my first note on RFC 4582, by accident I have omitted an item
>> initially intended to be included there.
>> Here we go with it:
>>
>>
>> (3)  duplicate text
>>
>> Section 13.1.1 of RFC 4582 contains two instances of the same
>> paragraph: the last paragraph on page 49 -- up to line formatting /
>> hyphenation -- is a replication of the third-to-last paragraph on
>> the same page.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>   Alfred.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: RFC 4582 (BFCP) ABNF issues
> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:50:27 +0200
> From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
> To: Alfred ? <ah@tr-sys.de>
> CC: jo@netlab.hut.fi,  drage@lucent.com
> References: <200612301007.LAA23236@TR-Sys.de>
>
> Hi Alfred,
>
> regarding 1), I agree with you that it is a formally-allowed slight
> abuse of ABNF. I will log your comments so that, if we need to revise
> the spec at some point, we fix it.
>
> Regarding 2), it is just a variation of [FLOOR-ID]. As you point out in
> 1), we could have used either [xxx] or *1(xxx) throughout the spec. It
> is unfortunate that we have used both in the same spec. However, even if
> this can be confusing, it is still correct. I will also log this comment
> for a potential future revision.
>
> Thanks a lot for your comments.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Gonzalo
>
>
>
> Alfred ? wrote:
>> Hello,
>> after studying the recently published RFC 4582 (BFCP) authored
>> by you, I'd like to report some concerns related to the ABNF
>> found in that memo.
>>
>>
>> (1)  general concern
>>
>> In ABNF, the notation   [ <group> ]   is a shorthand for:
>>                      0*1( <group> )   or shortly:
>>                       *1( <group> )  , i.e. zero or one of <group>.
>>
>> RFC 4582 repeatedly uses the ABNF notation,
>>     "*[ <group> ]" ,
>> literally meaning:
>>     "any number of { zero or one occurrences of <group> }".
>>
>> Although formally allowed by the ABNF RFC 4234, IMHO this is
>> some sort of slight abuse of ABNF;
>> as in other places, RFC 4582 better should have used
>>     "*( <group> )"
>> instead of the above notation (maybe even omitting the
>> parentheses -- but I do not recommend that, for clarity).
>>
>> This issue occurs in Figures 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, and 31..43 .
>>
>>
>> (2)  (potential) specific issue
>>
>> RFC 4582 pervasively uses the "optional" ABNF,  "[<group>]" ,
>> to denote optional syntax elements.  But there is one exception;
>> in Section 5.3.8, on page 33, Figure 38 contains the line:
>>
>>                           *1(FLOOR-ID)
>>
>> It is not evident from the context whether this is just an
>> accidential variation in the use of ABNF, i.e. intended to say:
>>
>>                           [FLOOR-ID]
>>
>> or if in fact it was intended to say:
>>
>>                           1*(FLOOR-ID)
>>
>> If the latter is true, the line in the RFC is in error and
>> I strongly recommend that you submit, as soon as possible,
>> an Author's Errata Note to the RFC Editor's RFC Errata web
>> pages, to correct this issue.
>>
>> Please comment.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>   Alfred H?nes.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bfcpbis mailing list
> bfcpbis@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>


-- 
# Cisco                         |  http://www.cisco.com/telepresence/
## tomkrist@cisco.com  |  http://www.tandberg.com
###                               |  http://folk.uio.no/tomkri/