Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6265 (3444)

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Mon, 07 January 2013 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: http-state@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: http-state@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A6C021F88BE for <http-state@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 07:42:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 veQY8ogMojHl for <http-state@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 07:42:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C86D21F86AC for <http-state@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 07:42:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.4]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MK7dj-1TtbtU25bB-001Paa for <http-state@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 16:42:49 +0100
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 07 Jan 2013 15:42:49 -0000
Received: from p54BB30A6.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [84.187.48.166] by mail.gmx.net (mp004) with SMTP; 07 Jan 2013 16:42:49 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+5XAkd7I+5mNPJn7y/tmOjN0eTl7M53HmiCaFjSC f6ZSlqPF/2p3Hs
Message-ID: <50EAECF6.80705@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 16:42:46 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
References: <20130106220249.48E80622E9@rfc-editor.org> <130ke8djdk8ki9a24j27urk9d263mc5d9o@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <CALaySJ+Jz5+OH=r1yJrSe=OA5ehNYf+KgRVwOFT_Mrnrb-zpig@mail.gmail.com> <ganle8pk0esfoolksmqt963vtjmog9bdp2@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <CALaySJJkAOn1AcvRqNmRRLeQukPYyT9VJE51XWRj2hiysLxqNg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJkAOn1AcvRqNmRRLeQukPYyT9VJE51XWRj2hiysLxqNg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: abarth@eecs.berkeley.edu, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Eran Hammer <eran@hueniverse.com>, http-state@ietf.org, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6265 (3444)
X-BeenThere: http-state@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discuss HTTP State Management Mechanism <http-state.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/http-state>, <mailto:http-state-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/http-state>
List-Post: <mailto:http-state@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:http-state-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-state>, <mailto:http-state-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:42:56 -0000

On 2013-01-07 15:49, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>>>> Corrected Text
>>>>> --------------
>>>>> path-value        = * <any CHAR except CTLs or ";">
>>>>> extension-av      = * <any CHAR except CTLs or ";">
>>>>
>>>> I would prefer if the quantifier is either pulled into the prose rule,
>>>> or the set of characters is put in a separate rule, say `av-octets`,
>>>> and the quantifier is then put in front of the reference to the rule.
>>
>> Something like
>>
>>    path-value        = *av-octet
>>    extension-av      = *av-octet
>>    av-octet          = <any CHAR except CTLs or ";">
>>
>> Or
>>
>>    path-value        = <zero or more of: any CHAR except CTLs or ";">
>>    extension-av      = <zero or more of: any CHAR except CTLs or ";">
>
> The second is really a non-starter: we want to minimize the plaintext
> instructions and put as much as possible in actual ABNF syntax.

In which case we might want to replace the prose rule with a true ABNF 
production.

> The first seems fine, but why do you think it's better than what the
> errata suggests?  I don't seen any advantage (or disadvantage) either
> way.

I agree with Björn that combining <prose rules> with "*" is something we 
should avoid.

Best regards, Julian