Re: [Ecrit] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-ecrit-data-only-ea-21: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> > 1. The ABNF makes the text string optional only by allowing zero or more of
> > them (so zero is allowed).
>
> This is true. Is this a problem? A production like [*(SEMI
> error-params)] seems redundant.

Not in itself; it was part of the overall comment, which is why
point-by-point replies sometimes... miss the point (oof!).

> The production is like it is in the current document because
> "error-params" is not _just_ the error code text. It is defined as
> "error-code-text / generic-param", which is a common way to define SIP
> header fields so that future extensions fit the ABNF in a
> backwards-compatible way (by matching "generic-param").

Ah, so here's the thing: I missed this line when I read it:

                               / generic-param ; from RFC3261

...and that's the key to why it's written as it is.  Had I noticed it,
I'd never have asked; thanks for pointing it out.

I'm off to clear this point now.

Barry