Re: [dispatch] Draft new: draft-holmberg-dispatch-iotl-00 - ABNF

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Thu, 08 May 2014 07:49 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAF4F1A04E8 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 May 2014 00:49:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 ud_h9ZX5iu20 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 May 2014 00:49:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E6851A04A7 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 May 2014 00:49:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-f790e6d000001067-41-536b371d0694
Received: from ESESSHC013.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 92.28.04199.D173B635; Thu, 8 May 2014 09:49:50 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.191]) by ESESSHC013.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.57]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Thu, 8 May 2014 09:49:49 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: "Dale R. Worley" <worley@ariadne.com>, "dispatch@ietf.org" <dispatch@ietf.org>, "Calme, James A (Jim)" <jim.calme@alcatel-lucent.com>
Thread-Topic: [dispatch] Draft new: draft-holmberg-dispatch-iotl-00 - ABNF
Thread-Index: Ac9qkZJIqq7oJYQfS0anruxhN3clMA==
Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 07:49:48 +0000
Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D2F1260@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.17]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrILMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvja6ceXawwcNLXBZLJy1gtbgwaQm7 xcsTZQ7MHq3P9rJ6TN7/ldljyZKfTAHMUVw2Kak5mWWpRfp2CVwZR6a/YCyYzFsx8/EsxgbG r5xdjJwcEgImEo+nTWaFsMUkLtxbz9bFyMUhJHCUUeJubyNYQkhgMaPEoXOCXYwcHGwCFhLd /7RBakQEuhklpj67DFYjLOAp8e7gXhYQW0TAS+L/wxPMELaeRN+Dl2A1LAIqEtdu7GUCsXkF fCV2fz/CDmIzAi3+fmoNWJxZQFzi1pP5TBAHCUgs2XOeGcIWlXj5+B8ryA0SAooSy/vlIMp1 JBbs/sQGYWtLLFv4mhlivKDEyZlPWCYwCs9CMnUWkpZZSFpmIWlZwMiyilG0OLU4KTfdyEgv tSgzubg4P08vL7VkEyMwDg5u+W2wg/Hlc8dDjAIcjEo8vAtKsoKFWBPLiitzDzFKc7AoifN+ O+seLCSQnliSmp2aWpBaFF9UmpNafIiRiYNTqoHRglv90sF9FjsXxPW7WW3sKrjlnBcin3ju 57ovJ3u+3ZY/OcGv74XIxevq+rcvMp//oPanaM/JK33//gX+Srn7Yf993sMJ4RYyJ4417V+v 9Mj13vGFTlYCRj+vZXxatIHjqAlPNfPhH91BfB0a7kd8Yplso6v4o3lZe2VvaoaueLnwzRnj 4tXZSizFGYmGWsxFxYkAjKV1ZWQCAAA=
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/KlZ1i2PnoBoY5hB3MAZAhCAuKX4
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Draft new: draft-holmberg-dispatch-iotl-00 - ABNF
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 07:49:57 -0000

Hi,

>>  iotl-param    = iotl-tag "=" iotl-value
>>  iotl-tag      = "iotl"
>>  iotl-value    = "homeA-homeB" / "homeB-visitedB" / "visitedA-homeA"
>>                  / "homeA-visitedA" /" visitedA-homeB" / gen-value
>
>> Given the current set of values, it would seem reasonable that they 
>> would be mutually exclusive. But do you expect this to always be true? 
>> Would it be possible that if additional values are defined that they 
>> could compliment the currently set, i.e., should the syntax allow one 
>> or more values to be included?
>
> RFC 3261 specifies that there can be only one URI parameter of a single name attached to a URI. 

Correct. We would have to define a way to, for one URI parameter, provide a list of values.

> OTOH, given that <iotl-value> can produce <gen-value>, there's no reason that one cannot define values that mean "the effect of 'homeA-homeB' plus special feature XYZ".

Correct.

Jim, just to verify: did you talk about multiple values for a single URI? 

(If you have multiple URIs, you can naturally put a different value in each of them.)

> Perhaps the thing to do is to define a particular character to mean "separator of multiple values" in <iotl-value>s.  This allows people who want to have combined iotl values in the future a consistent way to do it.
>
> If we want to avoid the necessity of quoting <iotl-value>, we are restricted to <token>:
>
>      token       =  1*(alphanum / "-" / "." / "!" / "%" / "*"
>                     / "_" / "+" / "`" / "'" / "~" )
>
> Which allows . ! % * _ + ` ' ~ for delimiters.

Yes.

Regards,

Christer