[MMUSIC] [mmusic] #20 (rfc4566bis): 4566bis: Lack of a consistent format for defining new attributes.

"mmusic issue tracker" <trac+mmusic@zinfandel.tools.ietf.org> Wed, 09 July 2014 12:58 UTC

Return-Path: <trac+mmusic@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5940B1A053B for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 05:58:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6o4jOpTmr8Fr for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 05:58:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5400C1A063B for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 05:58:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1]:35901 helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from <trac+mmusic@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1X4rRd-0002wB-D8; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 05:57:57 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: mmusic issue tracker <trac+mmusic@zinfandel.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software
To: draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis@tools.ietf.org, abegen@cisco.com
X-Trac-Project: mmusic
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 12:57:57 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/mmusic/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mmusic/trac/ticket/20
Message-ID: <057.3b838e4d829c5715eff10acf0456626c@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 20
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis@tools.ietf.org, abegen@cisco.com, mmusic@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+mmusic@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Resent-To: abegen@cisco.com, csp@csperkins.org, m.handley@cs.ucl.ac.uk, van@parc.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/-Ps2_CWR0mc7vCtH-LZZAEwWZT0
Cc: mmusic@ietf.org
Subject: [MMUSIC] [mmusic] #20 (rfc4566bis): 4566bis: Lack of a consistent format for defining new attributes.
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 12:58:04 -0000

#20: 4566bis: Lack of a consistent format for defining new attributes.

 Paul K.: Many people look to 4566 for examples of how to do this, but it
 provides bad examples. IMO 4566bis should show the definition of all
 attributes in a style that complies with a recommended format for defining
 attributes. (Of course that implies that we could agree on such a format.)

 From http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg13471.html

 One question is whether the definition of a new attribute should:
 1) define the full syntax of the line (starting with "a="),
 2) should provide additional definitions of <attribute> (via "/=")
 3) should provide additional definitions of <att-field> and <att-value>
   (via "/=")
 4) provide definitions of the name and value that are consistent with
   <att-field> and <att-value> without formally extending the
   definitions of those.

 Note that 4566 loosely follows (4) but gives the definitions informally
 rather than via ABNF. So it gives no guidance on how to use ABNF for this.
 A number of drafts have chosen to follow (2). Some have started to do (1)
 but I don't know of any that ended up that way.

 A question I have raised is: if (2) or (3) is followed, does that mean
 that the draft doing so must be considered as "updating" 4566?

 One thing that people sometimes forget when defining new attributes is
 that the syntax of the new attribute MUST also be valid when parsed by the
 "generic" attribute syntax. AFAIK there is no way in ABNF to specify that.
 I think that (4) comes closest.

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter:                |      Owner:  draft-ietf-mmusic-
  abegen@cisco.com       |  rfc4566bis@tools.ietf.org
    Type:  enhancement   |     Status:  new
Priority:  major         |  Component:  rfc4566bis
 Version:                |   Severity:  Active WG Document
Keywords:                |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mmusic/trac/ticket/20>
mmusic <http://tools.ietf.org/mmusic/>