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

Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> Mon, 07 January 2013 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
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 6B6AA21F882C for <http-state@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 06:56:20 -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 8d9dThMEW4Yk for <http-state@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 06:56:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sabertooth01.qualcomm.com (sabertooth01.qualcomm.com [65.197.215.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9DC821F87EA for <http-state@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 06:56:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1357569481; x=1389105481; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vxMi5Oq9zRQdJtp1ByPBNZkWH5dZ7FdTDIS609iQ01I=; b=nbtrRUjgU8Ec0Fh8GKaKWxUPqQMoudGg/r6hzE5go/60BIsITaZVQeIu o9cHINWIwMS+qcoMkh1m2sA7qS3e5SoJmTdJ+N9riyrrfgmdIeOHxgbgV HW+LzaqlC3coRCvZ41HkUOBOCJQ1h9nMxJHSUlbHN+zLvwt1E6pgqwSX9 A=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,424,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="14902115"
Received: from ironmsg04-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.19]) by sabertooth01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 07 Jan 2013 06:38:00 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,424,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="372103070"
Received: from nasanexhc07.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.190]) by Ironmsg04-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 07 Jan 2013 06:56:18 -0800
Received: from 75-145-176-246-illinois.hfc.comcastbusiness.net (172.30.39.5) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.190) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.4; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 06:56:18 -0800
Message-ID: <50EAE20D.1040607@qti.qualcomm.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 08:56:13 -0600
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
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: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [172.30.39.5]
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 08:36:19 -0800
Cc: abarth@eecs.berkeley.edu, 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 14:56:20 -0000

On 1/7/13 8:49 AM, 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.
>
> 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 tend to agree with Bjoern on this one. Though having a repeat before a 
prose-val is legal in ABNF, I find it pretty distasteful. Then again, I 
find prose-val in general to be distasteful. And I'm not clear on why 
you think the second suggestion above is a non-starter. Once we've gone 
and used prose-val, what harm is there in fixing the currently incorrect 
prose-val rather than adding a repeat to the front of it?

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478