IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Consensus call: ABNF nits

"Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com> Sat, 22 June 2013 05:49 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 0E04C21F9DCE for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 22:49:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.581
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, 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 DMC2UaeiqUbg for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 22:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FD1A21F9DDA for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 22:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=689; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1371880190; x=1373089790; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Tar+KYcNEZZ/FlRXSod9ccs2MbD64/akyn9ltiOqnck=; b=GNh6SiK81dx4rIb8o4WU1zaNfFnmmgyx/6vpandhB3IN513YSkaRwjBy pucUgZP1gyDGrLStVoy+1z1Tt9cZ0H/zNBpSvtfUpcrw91sXeJMkxccb6 jA38ra0NoE2kQeon+22FBhiumWM+zfJwAFTfJv8wLrXfljFtZ1vebMig+ U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Al8FALA5xVGtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABbgwl6gjy8f4EEFnSCIwEBAQQ6PxIBCBgKFEIlAgQOBQiIBrwjjxgxB4MAYQOpB4MPgig
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,917,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="226157386"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Jun 2013 05:49:46 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com [173.36.12.84]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r5M5ndoc028975 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sat, 22 Jun 2013 05:49:39 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.56]) by xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com ([173.36.12.84]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Sat, 22 Jun 2013 00:49:39 -0500
From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Thread-Topic: [Json] Consensus call: ABNF nits
Thread-Index: AQHObp4GCg0C1hAwXU6c6yl/pmiq4plA2MEAgAAJ9wCAAHO5gP//1BoA
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 05:49:38 +0000
Message-ID: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70FC612FE@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <44C998F8-D6D0-4E6E-BFCF-BA7E36A36892@vpnc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.5.130515
x-originating-ip: [10.21.115.32]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <04BF71A590E3404091B0DAD32C2BDD24@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Consensus call: ABNF nits
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: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 05:49:56 -0000

On 6/21/13 8:26 PM, "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

><chair hat on>
>
>On Jun 21, 2013, at 6:32 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
><jhildebr@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> The posted ABNF for option 1 didn't get the last change that I proposed:
>> 
>> unescaped = %x20-21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-D7FF / %xE000-10FFFF
>
>The purpose of *this* consensus call is a clarification of the ABNF that
>would technically match the ABNF in the current draft. The change you
>propose will be in a different consensus call that is dealing with the
>subject of code points.

Then I suggest you remove the (new) comment from that line for this
consensus call.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email