Re: [regext] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with COMMENT)

[Marc Blanchet <[e-mail]>]

> Le 25 janv. 2022 à 17:46, John Scudder <[e-mail]> a écrit :
> 
> Hi Marc,
> 
> Thanks, I just had a look at the diff. I have one further point to follow up on.
> 
>> On Jan 25, 2022, at 5:22 PM, Marc Blanchet <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Le 1 déc. 2021 à 21:05, John Scudder via Datatracker <[e-mail]> a écrit :
> […trimmed…]
>>> 3. In §5.3 you write,
>>> 
>>>                                                            The array
>>> always contains two AS numbers represented in decimal format
>>> 
>>> Don’t you mean, “each array element always contains…“? Also, it appears what it
>>> really contains is two ASNs *separated by a hyphen*.
>> 
>> <MB>Yes.</MB>
> 
> 05 still has the text as quoted above. I’m not sure if that was deliberate, or an oversight. In case it wasn’t clear, I was suggesting something along these lines: 
> 
> OLD:
>   served by the base RDAP URLs found in the second element.  The array
>   always contains two AS numbers represented in decimal format that
>   represents the range of AS numbers between the two elements of the
>   array, where values are in increasing order (e.g. 100-200, not
>   200-100).  A single AS number is represented as a range of two
> 
> NEW:
>   served by the base RDAP URLs found in the second element.  Each
>   element of the array
>   contains two AS numbers represented in decimal format, 
>   separated by a hyphen, that
>   represents the range of AS numbers between the two AS numbers
>   (inclusive), where values are in increasing order (e.g. 100-200, not
>   200-100).  A single AS number is represented as a range of two
> 
> (While I was at it I changed “between the two elements of the array”, which I think was just wrong, and added “inclusive”.)
> 
> If the text in 05 is exactly the way you want it, that’s OK, I think that for practical purposes the ambiguity is unlikely to be a problem, especially given the example (which is what I relied on to understand the meaning). I’m just pointing this out in case it was an oversight.

Was not an oversight. I thought you were looking for an answer to your comment, so I responded “yes” ;-)

Thanks for the text, I’ll add it to the -06, which I need to do anyway because I left two topics that need further discussion in the working group/ADs.

Thanks, Marc.



> 
> Regards,
> 
> —John