Re: [salud] New version of the ABNF-syntax

[[e-mail] (Dale R. Worley)]

> From: Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>
> 
> I've been trying to explain why this sort of wording doesn't work for 
> me, several times.  [...]

I tried to avoid this problem by describing which <provider>s a given
entity "owns", and thus has the right to define the meaning of
<label>s that are governed by that <provider>:

   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/salud/current/msg00341.html

   5) Definition of meaning of <label>s:

   5a) A <provider> has an "owner", which is the entity that was the
       registered owner of the domain name <provider-id> on the date
       <date> (with respect to rule (2)).

   5b) If an entity is the first registrant of a domain name
       <provider-id>, it owns all <provider>s with that <provider-id> and
       all <date>s preceding when it registered the domain name.

   5c) The entity owning <provider> defines the meaning of a
       <private-name>, whether it is used as an <alert-category> or an
       <alert-indication>.

   5d) The entity owning <provider> within a <private-name> (in either an
       <alert-category> or an <alert-indication>) defines the meaning of
       each <alert-indication> which is a <label> following that
       <private-name> and preceding the next <alert-indication> which is
       a <private-name>.

   5e) Entities SHOULD use only one <provider> value for all <private-name>s
       that they define.

Does that approach work for you?

Dale