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

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 2/13/13 9:46 AM, Laura Liess wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Because we had several changes and discussions which affect the
> syntax,  I send a new version to the list, including the rules for
> <date>.  I used the <provider-id>,  <MM> and <DD> definitions from the
> RFC 4198.
> Please let me know what you think of it.
>
>         alert-URN         = "urn:alert:" alert-identifier
>         alert-identifier    = alert-category ":" alert-indication
>         alert-category    = name/private-name
>         alert-indication   = alert-name *(":" alert-name)
>         alert-name         = name/private-name
>         name                = label

Since private-name is now allowed as a category as well as an 
alert-name, the above can be simplified further:

        alert-URN         = "urn:alert:" alert-identifier
        alert-identifier  = alert-category ":" alert-indication
        alert-category    = alert-name
        alert-indication  = alert-name *(":" alert-name)
        alert-name        = label/private-name

>         private-name      = label"@"provider-id["(" date ")"]
>         provider-id          = 1*(label ".") toplabel

Definition of toplabel is missing.

>         date                  = [CC] YY ["-" MM ["-" DD] ]
>         label                  = let-dig [ *let-dig-hyp let-dig ]
>         let-dig-hyp          = let-dig / "-"
>         let-dig                = ALPHA / DIGIT
>         YY                    = CC
>         CC                    = DIGIT DIGIT
>        MM                    = ("0" %x31-39) / ("1" %x30-32)
>        DD                     = ("0" %x31-39) / (%x31-32 DIGIT) / "30" / "31"
>        ALPHA               = %x41-5A / %x61-7A   ; A-Z / a-z
>        DIGIT                  = %x30-39 ; 0-9
>        DIGIT-1-9             = %x31-39 ; 1-9
>        DIGIT-2-9             = %x32-39 ; 2-9
>
>      Following rules apply to the <date> usage:
>         a) A provider is permitted to use any <date> within its domain
> name ownership time period.
>         b) If the <date> is absent, it defaults to 2013-01-01.
>         c) If <DD> or <MM> are absent each defaults to 01.
>         d)  If <CC> is absent it defaults to 20.
>         e)  Comparison is based on the full <CCYY-MM-DD> after defaults
> have been filled in.
>         f)   A provider is allowed to use a domain name without a date
> if he owns the domain at the default year 2013 or if he is able to
> verify that he is the first owner of the domain, e.g. by checking
> reliable domain history tools.   Note: We assume that the domain
> ownership does not change during the same year.

I'd like to propose a major change to (f):

"The meaning of a private-name with a particular domain name and date is 
specified by the owner of the domain at that date. The first owner of a 
domain may specify the meaning of private-names with dates prior to 
first ownership. As a consequence, the first owner of a domain may 
specify the meaning of a private-name that contains no date."

(My point is that anybody can *use* a private name with any date they 
want. The only issue is what (if anything) it *means*. Since there is no 
registration for private-names, we can just talk about it in a general way.)

I'm not entirely satisfied with the above. A private-name out of context 
doesn't really have a meaning. It is the whole alert-identifier that has 
a meaning. But I don't know how to say this in a comprehensible way.

	Thanks,
	Paul