Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-10: can attributes have a null value

[Brett Tate <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the response.  I agree with your RFC 4566 interpretation.  RFC
3211 did not conform to RFC 2327 (or RFC 4566) when introducing the
rtcp-xr attribute.  Thus I guess that it is just a matter of deciding how
best to remedy the situation.  Since the rfc4566bis ABNF is explicit, one
option is potentially to recommend that errata 3795 be accepted and leave
rfc4566bis as-is.

RFC 4566:

attribute-fields =    *(%x61 "=" attribute CRLF)
   attribute =           (att-field ":" att-value) / att-field
   att-field =           token
   att-value =           byte-string
   token-char =          %x21 / %x23-27 / %x2A-2B / %x2D-2E / %x30-39
                         / %x41-5A / %x5E-7E
   token =               1*(token-char)
   byte-string =         1*(%x01-09/%x0B-0C/%x0E-FF)
                         ;any byte except NUL, CR, or LF

RFC 2327:

attribute-fields =    *("a=" attribute CRLF)
   attribute =           (att-field ":" att-value) | att-field
   att-field =           1*(alpha-numeric)
   att-value =           byte-string
   byte-string =         1*(0x01..0x09|0x0b|0x0c|0x0e..0xff)
                         ;any byte except NUL, CR or LF

-----Original Message-----
From: mmusic [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ali C. Begen
(abegen)
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 10:42 AM
To: Brett Tate
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-10: can attributes have
a null value


On Aug 5, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Brett Tate <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-10 section 5.13 discusses two formats of
> attribute fields.  However, it doesn't appear to clearly indicate the
> validity/invalidity of colon without a value.

It says there are two forms. since "a=<attribute>:" is not listed as a
form, I guess it simply means it is not valid usage.

>
> Is an attribute such as "a=rtcp-xr:" valid?

Not based on my knowledge.

> For instance, RFC 3611
> indicates that it is valid; however errata 3795 indicates that it
> potentially shouldn't be valid.

I am not sure why that errate is not verified. To me, 3611 has an abnf
syntax error that should be fixed.

>
> Should draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-10 section 5.13 be updated to
> clarify the topic?

We can add a sentence to ban such a usage but now I wonder whether they
have been attributes defined in that form in the past. Is anyone aware of
any?

-acbegen