[rfc-i] ABNF Core Rule extensions

julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke) Sat, 31 January 2015 08:36 UTC

From: "julian.reschke at gmx.de"
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 09:36:10 +0100
Subject: [rfc-i] ABNF Core Rule extensions
In-Reply-To: <54CC1074.3060306@dcrocker.net>
References: <54C3CF7F.6090901@seantek.com> <54C4AFF1.6030608@gmx.de> <54C7FAD7.7040500@alum.mit.edu> <54C870B5.7000205@seantek.com> <20150128173229.GC3110@localhost> <54C9632A.2040204@seantek.com> <20150128230227.GG3110@localhost> <54CB6B9A.1080801@seantek.com> <54CBB82F.2050007@alum.mit.edu> <54CBEB88.4020608@dcrocker.net> <20150130214124.GN3110@localhost> <54CC1074.3060306@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <54CC93FA.2030806@gmx.de>

On 2015-01-31 00:15, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 1/30/2015 1:41 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
>> That seems like overkill, unless there's pent up demand for lots of
>> extensions (which there might be, but I wouldn't know).
>
>
> This is the second serious effort within not very many months.[*]  And
> folks have regularly suggested additions constantly for maybe 20 years.
>   These are consistently reasonable suggestions, but that's not the same
> as saying that the community feels need of the enhancement.
>
> So I'd rather make it easy to define the addition and link it into the
> base and then let the market decide whether it's worth using.
>
>
> d/
>
> [*] Case-Sensitive String Support in ABNF
>      https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7405

Wow. A non-WG document updating a full standard where the discussion 
that led to the draft apparently is not archived. Not good.

Best regards, Julian