IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Consensus call: ABNF nits

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Sat, 22 June 2013 03:25 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 EB0CD21F9B0F for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 20:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 DytXzhvCRo6Z for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 20:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D43E521F9B03 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 20:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r5M3PCjg006320; Sat, 22 Jun 2013 05:25:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54891B2F.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.27.47]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 992BF7725; Sat, 22 Jun 2013 05:25:11 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <44C998F8-D6D0-4E6E-BFCF-BA7E36A36892@vpnc.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 05:25:10 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DF7FAA2F-FDF4-4F2B-9429-D3F46B1E2029@tzi.org>
References: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A70FC60963@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <44C998F8-D6D0-4E6E-BFCF-BA7E36A36892@vpnc.org>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>, 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 03:25:25 -0000

On Jun 22, 2013, at 04:26, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

> clarification of the ABNF

Yes.  But Norbert and Joe are right that the change to the comment in that clarification already anticipates the change to the ABNF itself in that separate consensus call.
So at this stage, it needs to say "Unicode code point", until we change both the production and the comment to "Unicode scalar value".

This is less a matter of consensus, than of correctness.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status