IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Update reference for ABNF

"Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com> Thu, 06 June 2013 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <jhildebr@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B3AB21F9B08 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 10:53:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rmTJqGC791QR for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 10:53:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66A0821F9B2F for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 10:53:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=911; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1370541183; x=1371750783; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Dgt57g4C97MdUkw6ULBdBbfj1DnEP9B3ioMWUEAnP7A=; b=GiAU+c1aT651SWUiLxDyi7h/AhJkOgAA3srQNeozP1Y+DNp+xCp3cpGq JrvkhxYCuTn9kSkybyB+Ap8b3dGiNd9MJpV54RZNVQvbeh1Gs76Gtiicf IUqGekmoN5EiYAZ8UwYgPZ7LIDBVM7NVbZ+0EFhx2w9uFRpuu6KKSNsWg 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AggFADXLsFGtJXG8/2dsb2JhbABZgwm/d3kWdIIjAQEBBDoyCgMSAQgYChRCJQIEAQ0FCIgFu32PATEHgnphA6h/gw+CJw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,816,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="219704158"
Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Jun 2013 17:53:03 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com [173.36.12.83]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r56Hr2Bf019730 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 6 Jun 2013 17:53:02 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.56]) by xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com ([173.36.12.83]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 12:53:02 -0500
From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Thread-Topic: [Json] Update reference for ABNF
Thread-Index: AQHOYlR0vnpujuiFN0KbF2i2aAN76ZkoQXSAgAAA8ACAAJUMAIAATbWAgAAU64CAAAIGAP//q9yA
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 17:53:02 +0000
Message-ID: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70FC308CB@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <67FC4D12-AE76-45AC-A9B1-18FA33D030B4@vpnc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.4.130416
x-originating-ip: [10.21.88.234]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <901A7A74D0391B4DB19DBCB0159A2286@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Update reference for ABNF
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 17:53:09 -0000

On 6/6/13 10:54 AM, "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

>On Jun 6, 2013, at 9:46 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 17:32, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Will one or more of you who care about good ABNF volunteer to do
>>>careful checks against RFC 5234?
>> 
>> Well, so far I only checked that 5234 is not worse for 4627bis than
>>4234.
>> But I can also volunteer to torture-test the ABNF itself.
>
>Thank you, we have a volunteer! Who will be the second? That's a serious
>question: some WGs have passed non-ABNF-compliant documents due to having
>too few checkers. Fortunately, there is little ABNF in this document, so
>that should cause others to want to gain this new and valuable skill.

I've got some adequate abnf parsing code that I wrote last year against
5234.  I'll at least run that.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email