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/
- [bfcpbis] Old comments on RFC 4582 Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [bfcpbis] Old comments on RFC 4582 Tom Kristensen