Re: [scim] Filter ABNF Clarifications

If adding the optional space to the ABNF is not feasible, then perhaps the
non-normative example in Figure 2 that includes the space should be updated
to remove it? This example [1] is not compliant with the ABNF syntax:
not (emails co "example.com" or emails.value co "example.org")

Also, is there somewhere that changes like this are being tracked for a
future SCIM spec?

Thanks for the discussion and clarification regardless

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7644#page-23

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 1:02 PM Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@independentid.com>
wrote:

> Shelley,
>
> I agree, the ABNF you propose may have been a better way to express “not”
> filters. AFAIK, the iETF does not allow us to make this kind of RFC update
> as technically it is a normative change.
>
> IMO this would be a good item to address as a clarification item in a
> possible future SCIM 2.1 or 3 draft.
>
> Phillip Hunt
> phil.hunt@independentid.com
>
>
>
> On Aug 13, 2020, at 10:12 AM, Shelley <randomshelley@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> OK, thanks for the clarification. I think I better understand the intent
> behind the "*1" now; this also allows for optional parentheses around any
> filter expression. I presume the space should still be allowed between the
> "not" and open parenthesis "(", though? The following updated syntax
> includes an optional space following the "not", and also includes the
> recommended parentheses grouping [1] for clarification:
>
>      FILTER    = attrExp / logExp / valuePath / ( ["not" *1SP] "(" FILTER
> ")" )
>
>      valFilter = attrExp / logExp / ( ["not" *1SP] "(" valFilter ")" )
>
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5234#section-3.5
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 11:27 AM Phillip Hunt <phil.hunt@independentid.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Shelly
>>
>> The “not” is itself optional to allow bracketing of sub filter
>> expressions.
>>
>> (Filter) or not(filter)
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> On Aug 13, 2020, at 8:56 AM, Shelley <randomshelley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> While reviewing the SCIM 2.0 filter ABNF syntax [1], I found what appears
>> to be a couple of issues that I wanted to confirm before submitting errata.
>>
>> Regarding the "not" filters:
>>
>>      FILTER    = attrExp / logExp / valuePath / *1"not" "(" FILTER ")"
>>
>>      valFilter = attrExp / logExp / *1"not" "(" valFilter ")"
>>
>> Specifically, if I'm not mistaken:
>>
>>    - there should be a space between "not" and "("
>>       - alternatively, the following example [2] *should not *include a
>>       space:
>>       not (emails co "example.com" or emails.value co "example.org")
>>    - the use of "*1" is not correct
>>       - this effectively makes the entire rule optional
>>
>> As such, I think the above filters should be re-written as:
>>
>>      FILTER    = attrExp / logExp / valuePath / "not" [SP] "(" FILTER ")"
>>
>>      valFilter = attrExp / logExp / "not" [SP] "(" valFilter ")"
>>
>> In case any SCIM clients/providers are relying on the existing ABNF which
>> does not define the space, the above syntax makes the space optional.
>>
>> Please confirm whether I've misinterpreted anything, otherwise, I will
>> likely report this as errata.
>>
>> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7644#page-21
>> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7644#page-23
>> _______________________________________________
>> scim mailing list
>> scim@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/scim
>>
>>
>