Re: [cuss] ABNF in UUI documents

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 20 February 2013 16:56 UTC

Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB11E21E8048 for <cuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:56:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -107.222
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.222 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.973, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p4i0+3CYJn-3 for <cuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:56:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smail3.alcatel.fr (smail3.alcatel.fr [62.23.212.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F046521E8044 for <cuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:56:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.61]) by smail3.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id r1KGslt3018552 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:56:49 +0100
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.46]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.61]) with mapi; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:56:32 +0100
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>, "cuss@ietf.org" <cuss@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:56:31 +0100
Thread-Topic: [cuss] ABNF in UUI documents
Thread-Index: Ac4Ph8aq6XNeOoeDRROn/T9BDC6cagAAyABQ
Message-ID: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE21070160E7A@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE21070160D6A@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <5124FA6B.30704@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <5124FA6B.30704@alum.mit.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.83
Subject: Re: [cuss] ABNF in UUI documents
X-BeenThere: cuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Call Control UUI for SIP \(cuss\) working group discussion list" <cuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cuss>, <mailto:cuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cuss>
List-Post: <mailto:cuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss>, <mailto:cuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:56:55 -0000

These issues are orthogonal.

Placing a value in an IANA registry does not define it, all it does is make some attempt at stopping someone else from using it for a different purpose.

The normative definition is the base RFC. 

All I am doing is ensuring that the ABNF defines the values, rather than the text. If you extract the ABNF from both documents and combine them, then you can very strings against it.

What I am proposing is exactly what has been done for some, but not all, attribute values in SDP.

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:cuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Paul Kyzivat
> Sent: 20 February 2013 16:32
> To: cuss@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [cuss] ABNF in UUI documents
> 
> Keith,
> 
> We are establishing a registry for purpose/package values.
> IMO you should use that for "isdn-uui", rather than extending the syntax
> to include it.
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul
> 
> On 2/20/13 7:04 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
> > I make the ABNF more formal in the UUISDN document, and that requires a
> change to the UUI document.
> >
> > Currently section 11 of draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-isdn-04 defines.
> >
> > 11.  Coding requirements
> >
> >     This document defines "isdn-uui" as a new value of the User-to-User
> >     "purpose" header field parameter.
> >
> >     This document defines "isdn-uui" as a new value of the User-to-User
> >     "content" header field parameter.  A content value of "isdn-uui"
> >     indicates that the contents have a first octet that is a protocol
> >     discriminator (see table 4-26 of ITU-T Recommendation Q.931) [Q931]
> >     followed by uui-data that can be subject to a length limitation
> >     (before encoding or after decoding) that is generally 128 octets.
> >
> > My question is whether this should define BNF to add this to the BNF of
> draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui which is currently.
> >
> >          UUI         = "User-to-User" HCOLON uui-value *(COMMA uui-
> value)
> >          uui-value   = uui-data *(SEMI uui-param)
> >          uui-data    = token / quoted-string
> >          uui-param   = pkg-param / cont-param / enc-param / generic-
> param
> >          pkg-param   = "purpose" EQUAL token
> >          cont-param  = "content" EQUAL token
> >          enc-param   = "encoding" EQUAL ("hex" / token)
> >
> > If we did this I guess it would look something like:
> >
> >          pkg-param   = "purpose" EQUAL "isdn-uui" / token
> >          cont-param  = "content" EQUAL "isdn-uui" / token
> >
> > Originally I was thinking we could do something like
> >
> > 	pkg-param-value /= "isdn-uui"
> >
> > but that would require an update to draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui to do:
> >
> >          pkg-param   = "purpose" EQUAL pkg-param-value
> > 	  pkg-param-value = token
> >
> > Can we make this change to the UUI document, and I'll then follow
> through with the UUI ISDN document?
> >
> > regards
> >
> > Keith
> > _______________________________________________
> > cuss mailing list
> > cuss@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cuss mailing list
> cuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cuss