[EAI] FW:Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-eai-rfc5337bis-dsn-1
"Jiankang YAO" <yaojk@cnnic.cn> Mon, 13 December 2010 00:37 UTC
Return-Path: <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
X-Original-To: ima@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BC713A6D50 for <ima@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Dec 2010 16:37:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Quarantine-ID: <pTSIES7QJpq8>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER, Duplicate header field: "Message-ID"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.166
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.166 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.719, BAYES_00=-2.599, HS_FORGED_OE_FW=2.595, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pTSIES7QJpq8 for <ima@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Dec 2010 16:37:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9A8F23A6D16 for <ima@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Dec 2010 16:37:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: (eyou send program); Mon, 13 Dec 2010 08:38:42 +0800
Message-ID: <492200722.01880@cnnic.cn>
X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: yaojk@cnnic.cn
Received: from unknown (HELO lenovo47e041cf) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 08:38:42 +0800
Message-ID: <DEC4A98A41644D448F8E4C912F20BB6F@LENOVO47E041CF>
From: Jiankang YAO <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
To: ima@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 08:38:48 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0286_01CB9AA1.29613640"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994
Subject: [EAI] FW:Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-eai-rfc5337bis-dsn-1
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 00:37:09 -0000
fyi
--- Begin Message ---On 12/12/10 10:48 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) wrote: > The base IMAP RFC (3501) made this construct easy and (I think) > relatively obvious. YMMV. If a grammar extension is globally > applicable to a parent specification, I think the subject document > reads easier if the extension is called out at the top of the grammar, > rather than littering each ABNF element with a callout comment. The > alternatives can get very noisy, especially if there is multiple > inheritance involved. I take your point but then if you are calling out multiple specifications someone has to go on a fishing expedition to understand perhaps the single definition they want out of a specification. Eliot _______________________________________________ apps-discuss mailing list apps-discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---> So I suggest having a citation for the original version of the rule be included > in a comment associated with the new rule. > > For example: > > generic-address =/ utf-8-enc-addr > ; updates Section 3.2.3 of [RFC3798] FWIW, this is what I did for IMAP Binary (3516); it doesn't seem to have caused any confusion: 7. Formal Protocol Syntax The following syntax specification uses the augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) notation as used in [ABNF], and incorporates by reference the Core Rules defined in that document. This syntax augments the grammar specified in [IMAP4rev1]. append =/ "APPEND" SP mailbox [SP flag-list] [SP date-time] SP literal8 fetch-att =/ "BINARY" [".PEEK"] section-binary [partial] / "BINARY.SIZE" section-binary literal8 = "~{" number "}" CRLF *OCTET ; <number> represents the number of OCTETs ; in the response string. msg-att-static =/ "BINARY" section-binary SP (nstring / literal8) / "BINARY.SIZE" section-binary SP number partial = "<" number "." nz-number ">" resp-text-code =/ "UNKNOWN-CTE" section-binary = "[" [section-part] "]" The base IMAP RFC (3501) made this construct easy and (I think) relatively obvious. YMMV. If a grammar extension is globally applicable to a parent specification, I think the subject document reads easier if the extension is called out at the top of the grammar, rather than littering each ABNF element with a callout comment. The alternatives can get very noisy, especially if there is multiple inheritance involved. --lyndon _______________________________________________ apps-discuss mailing list apps-discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---On 12/12/2010 8:40 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: >> More importantly, the specification makes use of the =/ operator from RFC >> 5234, but for constructs that it does not control. I don't know if this was >> the original intent or not, but I am a little concerned that use of =/ in a >> construct that is not wholly controlled by a single specification is asking >> for confusion later. This is an optional specification, right? > > After discussing this a bit with Dave Crocker, perhaps this problem is all in my > head. Therefore, I recommend no change to the spec on this point. While I believe the current specification's use of =/ is not only legal but that it is in fact exactly the sort of use that was intended, I also note that it's a pretty unusual ABNF construct and that it might invite some confusion. Cross-referencing a rule from another specification strikes me as a big deal and that it's worth helping the reader as much as possible. So I suggest having a citation for the original version of the rule be included in a comment associated with the new rule. For example: generic-address =/ utf-8-enc-addr ; updates Section 3.2.3 of [RFC3798] d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ apps-discuss mailing list apps-discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---I wrote: On 12/7/10 8:07 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > I have been selected as the Applications Area Review Team reviewer for > this draft (for background on apps-review, please see > http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/applications-area-review-team). > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd > or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > Document: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5337bis-01 > Title: Internationalized Delivery Status and Disposition Notifications > Reviewer: Eliot Lear > Review Date: 7 Dec 2010 > .. > More importantly, the specification makes use of the =/ operator from > RFC 5234, but for constructs that it does not control. I don't know > if this was the original intent or not, but I am a little concerned > that use of =/ in a construct that is not wholly controlled by a > single specification is asking for confusion later. This is an > optional specification, right? After discussing this a bit with Dave Crocker, perhaps this problem is all in my head. Therefore, I recommend no change to the spec on this point. Eliot_______________________________________________ apps-discuss mailing list apps-discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss--- End Message ---
- [EAI] FW:Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-… Jiankang YAO