IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 02 November 2020 19:19 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A4693A0B63; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 11:19:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 3TmqTwZQZI9e; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 11:19:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89CBB3A0B3E; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 11:19:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0304AF4070D; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 11:18:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1F49F4070D for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 11:18:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LJjGZfc1DCWs for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 11:18:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0B00F4070C for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 11:18:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p548dcc60.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.204.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4CQ2lY05S2zyXw; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 20:19:04 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <1ccf550a-7a32-0a7e-d599-5ed65b8923ae@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2020 20:19:04 +0100
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 626037544.505-5492f3251183fc38ae3f31ac0ca5034d
Message-Id: <DE9A632F-9923-45B3-983C-3751565F237D@tzi.org>
References: <20201026181442.GA2438@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <A05242FC-C38C-474F-A2AC-412329CA5C52@isc.org> <CAKq15ve-kAFZWH_f7=1XXC5PfxvO-sAzppB1fVTyqUufLftkVg@mail.gmail.com> <D2DB703DBF2A44A19B8F80DD@PSB> <CAKq15vdFVkG6_grNtqUqq-yDwj9QQcHJFZB5+RB-8fdxQXhFSw@mail.gmail.com> <fa36e919-b1a0-5b3c-9b42-54c6fdaadfb@iecc.com> <e8554ea2-1849-279f-733d-5798de8817b9@gmail.com> <26d1ff54-777f-884b-e35-d91e9fe59662@iecc.com> <00a1fc15-7559-96c6-7cd7-3ae5afd62237@gmail.com> <a34f219b-7c76-4b48-4844-5af3cd4f344@iecc.com> <be8dce95-2b4c-52c8-7eda-8a9b127a6dd4@gmail.com> <cdc14c1-54c9-5273-584c-ddb656912952@iecc.com> <5F9FDB7E.1080805@btconnect.com> <ae44e31b-964a-7901-4883-72abb0dbb8d3@gmx.de> <5F9FF8EA.9020809@btconnect.com> <bfa63584-1f49-1370-65d0-a217dcc4dbc5@gmx.de> <e530ccdc-6587-13dd-df51-29fc0c0b2fcd@nostrum.com> <752c6c5d-eab0-966f-141f-a7d402fdf4fe@gmx.de> <61673811-f47f-7122-2260-527bdec591d6@nostrum.com> <fb102886-22b1-f92e-bac8-336f4e74316d@gmx.de> <1ccf550a-7a32-0a7e-d599-5ed65b8923ae@nostrum.com>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

> ABNF can get pretty large (certainly more than one traditional page).

As can CDDL.

Generally, introducing parts of a CDDL spec in a piecemeal fashion, like it is done in RFC 8152, can work well, if there is a defined way to get the spec out from the XML.  There is for RFC 8152:

   //artwork[@type='CDDL']/text()

(which would need to be adapted to RFCXMLv3 now).

CDDL and ABNF have in common that you can point to places in the spec by rule name, as these are unique (they are not ordered, but that’s what search functions are for).

> So can the ASN.1 module representations used in security drafts.

I’m out :-)

> I don't think 50 pages is common for those cases, but more than one probably is.

Grüße, Carsten

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email