[Ltru] Re: Remove extlang from ABNF?

Martin Duerst wrote:

> As an extreme example, such a tag may by accident be
> part of a document used for managing a nuclear plant.

Something's wrong with this installation if it depends
on the syntactical well-formedness of <obs-extlang>.

And you could use the same example with a "malicious"
<obs-extlang>, when it survives a syntax check still
allowing non-existent <obs-extlang>s as "well formed".

> With a software update, the document could suddently
> become non-conforming, triggering some error.

It might as well trigger an error in lazy 4646bis code
not prepared to support any <obs-extlang> because they
don't exist.

4646bis code with the new minimal "most perverse tag"
buffer size might correctly identify the non-existing
well-formed <obs-extlang> construct as too long, and
follow a code path not tested for the nuclear plant -
this example isn't compelling, it cuts on both sides.

 Frank

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru