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

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

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