Re: A BNF specification for RSVP-GMPLS and LMP

"tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com> Fri, 14 November 2008 11:51 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50C873A6A6B for <ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:51:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.724
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.724 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_24_48=1.219, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bFsrG5UxABGk for <ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:51:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74D4A3A6A69 for <ccamp-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:51:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1L0x9l-0008U4-W6 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:48:09 +0000
Received: from [212.74.114.38] (helo=mk-outboundfilter-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>) id 1L0x9f-0008Hj-LR for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:48:06 +0000
X-Trace: 160745557/mk-outboundfilter-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com/PIPEX/$PIPEX-ACCEPTED/pipex-customers/62.188.105.113
X-SBRS: None
X-RemoteIP: 62.188.105.113
X-IP-MAIL-FROM: cfinss@dial.pipex.com
X-IP-BHB: Once
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuEEAHv0HEk+vGlx/2dsb2JhbABHgwqJW8MiB4Jx
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,602,1220223600"; d="scan'208";a="160745557"
X-IP-Direction: IN
Received: from 1cust113.tnt2.lnd9.gbr.da.uu.net (HELO allison) ([62.188.105.113]) by smtp.pipex.tiscali.co.uk with SMTP; 14 Nov 2008 11:47:59 +0000
Message-ID: <002601c94645$3f25cf20$0601a8c0@allison>
Reply-To: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>
From: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
References: <002901c935f2$92f928d0$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe>
Subject: Re: A BNF specification for RSVP-GMPLS and LMP
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:42:14 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <ccamp.ops.ietf.org>

Adrian

I have seen this announcement on a number of lists but I am unclear where you
want the discussion to take place.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 5:05 PM
Subject: A BNF specification for RSVP-GMPLS and LMP


> Hi,
>
> This draft provides a specification of the BNF we already use in RSVP-TE and
> LMP and makes it available for use in future protocol extensions.
>
> I intend asking that this draft progress in the standards process relatively
> soon.
>
> Please review and comment as soon as possible.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Internet-Drafts@ietf.org>
> To: <i-d-announce@ietf.org>
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 5:00 PM
> Subject: I-D Action:draft-farrel-rtg-common-bnf-06.txt
>
>
> >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> >directories.
> >
> > Title           : Reduced Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) A Syntax Used in Various
> > Protocol Specifications
> > Author(s)       : A. Farrel
> > Filename        : draft-farrel-rtg-common-bnf-06.txt
> > Pages           : 12
> > Date            : 2008-10-24
> >
> > Several protocols have been specified using a common variant of the
> > Backus-Naur Form (BNF) of representing message syntax. However, there
> > is no formal definition of this version of BNF.
> >
> > There is value in using the same variant of BNF for the set of
> > protocols that are commonly used together. This reduces confusion and
> > simplifies implementation.
> >
> > Updating existing documents to use some other variant of BNF that is
> > already formally documented would be a substantial piece of work.
> >
> > This document provides a formal definition of the variant of BNF that
> > has been used (that we call Reduced BNF), and makes it available for
> > use by new protocols.
> >
> > A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farrel-rtg-common-bnf-06.txt
>
>