Re: [calsify] AD review of draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-23

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 19 February 2020 23:42 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: calsify@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: calsify@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F95F12095F; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:42:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DxeTI_a2KkQf; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:42:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-f65.google.com (mail-io1-f65.google.com [209.85.166.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76567120908; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:42:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-f65.google.com with SMTP id c16so2596822ioh.6; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:42:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CK8xzqNINvElFCAk/rGDBCtBexviGXegCeHLsu2rvn0=; b=qF0AhuO9+taoJQhjpO4Wa6PRnMrVhcYKQo5CDtWQyakOu6DcKbCKYaprYbh8sMuHan PK+IJIFebGTPBCjqyaFRopsc1fknP5kkUQGAFxgVmmwjZOX2YuSZDhT8HT8heBve9TEF QowhS/9nuF44a51F7RmiE+5EoSmGWgI7NfQl6ZpVLr6fLSxV+N9EAwOFhspFBhRFY3P2 7H9b8IbLhet8uuj2RzkDgGXgO8eQ+4rpeidGHL+4oXTXOEKzcpFMqCqC0hyxkODROTQA WOwXFNJa+VC9RGbwnuOmIuNoODzipgmyzlXnd/2sCWuCFUTrNzUIuHOTZie0IdxQJU6P q21A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAViMMnpd2csY4sBYbOKcBhPSshFue7GCMvfuZY39cjH3oq+WTst hM+sn2Sf/SWsQk6mKAlHpc9ppg5cWb8qI6lhEXtwwY8f
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyPIIreN7ssOAAqRpb8FuFTrVWB3T/J9TMxs1Wm68uBz5hKMiPv3s3UJdnltkTF9vzvXvsihoTDXRNJ5n7DcEg=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:2b6:: with SMTP id d22mr23210654jaq.59.1582155772665; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:42:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALaySJJREdQn2oXr9+WgRn+rw2T=JHY-gTv8m+d1u4eZqjFO3w@mail.gmail.com> <3bfc7bbf-7ca2-afaa-8829-0f9f02670cb4@googlemail.com> <CALaySJ+Xj2mQqpY3pXKKwqnmGuYXjX5RCH6VzdVWNVANaWLV_A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+Xj2mQqpY3pXKKwqnmGuYXjX5RCH6VzdVWNVANaWLV_A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:42:41 -0800
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+3tXBG-bS7on-DKbaS_MTnr4V7_9Z3AFRvHtJsriyr3w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael H Deckers <michael.h.deckers@googlemail.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar.all@ietf.org, calsify@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/calsify/C2gXgYf-oxutvDYSNVmyII2K-kU>
Subject: Re: [calsify] AD review of draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-23
X-BeenThere: calsify@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <calsify.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/calsify>, <mailto:calsify-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/calsify/>
List-Post: <mailto:calsify@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:calsify-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/calsify>, <mailto:calsify-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 23:42:55 -0000

I'll add that I just passed it by Dave Crocker, as we're both in the
same meeting, and his squints and grimaces about the existing
construct matched mine.  He agrees that you should change it.  You now
have one current AD and two former ones, one of whom is the editor of
the ABNF spec, telling you that what you have there is not a good
idea.

Barry

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:35 PM Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
>
> I'm not going to hold out and block things on this point, so if the
> working group really want to stay with the harder-to-follow version
> I'll step aside.  But I do feel that using an alternative structure
> where one alternative is optional and the other is not... is really
> unnecessarily confusing.  The text certainly make the default clear,
> and keep in mind that ABNF is not intended to convey such things as
> defaults.
>
> Barry
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:32 PM Michael H Deckers
> <michael.h.deckers@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2020-02-19 06:58, Barry Leiba wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > — Section 1.4.6 —
> > >
> > >         signed-duration = (["+"] / "-") duration
> > >
> > > I guess this works.  I think this is a bit cleaner.  No?:
> > >
> > > NEW
> > >         signed-duration = ["+" / "-"] duration
> > > END
> > >
> > > (I passed the original by a colleague as a check, and he kept looking
> > > at it with varying puzzled expressions before he agreed that he
> > > understood it.  Let’s not make people work that hard.)
> >
> >
> >
> >     I beg to disagree. The syntax
> >
> >        (["+"] / "-") duration
> >
> >     makes it clear that a sign may precede a duration, and that
> >     the default sign (if none is explicit) is "+". The proposed
> >     syntax
> >
> >        ["+"  / "-"] duration
> >
> >     does not make the default clear.
> >
> >     Actually, the following text lists the two
> >     alternatives as in the former syntax rule, so I do
> >     not expect difficulties in understanding.
> >
> >     Michael Deckers.
> >