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

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 07 January 2013 14:49 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.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 86CDA21F8825 for <http-state@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 06:49:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.146
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.146 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.169, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 TQYkRAXTyXP9 for <http-state@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 06:49:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-f51.google.com (mail-la0-f51.google.com [209.85.215.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B639121F8804 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 06:49:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f51.google.com with SMTP id fj20so16017613lab.10 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 06:49:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=dcg2e5Cz3tmQIVplJCRhFU8eRlku5/3gAWmFmEhHnIY=; b=lojVkCNuJZwTTDah1612aVCbDZdcxJcBi6j+vxIBcs4QrZGs47zmpXiGh3QYps8HzU Zhewzvn/Kr+PlCl0l/pbB8mLFI09YZuttHFsjvvsSSeJqOo8IWrv/XMyqKi26cvEMgtV 30qZNQEKaXDFoq0YWGVuf50RkvWdJujTnjYqfDXgk9W2M2m4Iyey0b/Tzlupg0JPI1d4 3oAiwNlopriMd/7sM14W9eZsF1M6TSndYNoNlzSFC6Ea4lhnAnl0j8+Cmg7nCV4XBww4 YIB2vshszA78FndF9Y2ak9x0ykumADW1A5KgHJDMWtBXIEHk8gF9HmmsU4zajpBRlo9L 5fFA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.38.72 with SMTP id e8mr20756181lbk.123.1357570186643; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 06:49:46 -0800 (PST)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.81.194 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 06:49:46 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <ganle8pk0esfoolksmqt963vtjmog9bdp2@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
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>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 09:49:46 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: iS6ZEMSzQ4LuhRmB3v7HCRFJLDg
Message-ID: <CALaySJJkAOn1AcvRqNmRRLeQukPYyT9VJE51XWRj2hiysLxqNg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: abarth@eecs.berkeley.edu, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, 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 14:49:48 -0000

>>>>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.

Barry