Return-Path: <lonvick.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1])
 by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBE191A06FC;
 Sat,  6 Sep 2014 10:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.881
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.881 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.981,
 HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 rgEsjPmTBxmb; Sat,  6 Sep 2014 10:37:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22b.google.com (mail-pd0-x22b.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22b])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F3A51A06FA;
 Sat,  6 Sep 2014 10:37:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f171.google.com with SMTP id p10so1131855pdj.16
 for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 06 Sep 2014 10:37:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; 
 h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject
 :references:in-reply-to:content-type;
 bh=NYS+oXSiDTStlotM3VIczVXUSKWur5ymZXF4FK2OqxA=;
 b=KG6+hAxThtXBGJMmUSkmrwOVMMptVjNMH50gzIh+dzD8CMU8yDsEfcp/EKwuHTPQK7
 HpNJsgUxkiZyHrueLj74ClQQUaphhDKpQ75m+wOU0oiFXHyBv61miPZ6sx1EHI+8jp2p
 2AO60b7l5GAkQYkDoH3ABFCWfCUgioxVP5GOjDVj6s9CEc5Id47ZLYfyDli2DkP0BlWw
 +d//f18EL9TdtVwKk/+XDMBXSDeTnTe4XDK8r/MdMicV+RKgr6bFwK/9N3pKt4OjTCFw
 uQK8EGVde+B4qwRl4ot+NL8BfTLbTC6BTwwR+/tDWyVkxBWUeU42aSB4/4FCsxm7Err5
 gMSA==
X-Received: by 10.66.246.109 with SMTP id xv13mr4575060pac.144.1410025034987; 
 Sat, 06 Sep 2014 10:37:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.76] (172-3-137-150.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net.
 [172.3.137.150])
 by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ba5sm4783426pbd.72.2014.09.06.10.37.13
 for <multiple recipients>
 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
 Sat, 06 Sep 2014 10:37:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <540B4648.4080002@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2014 10:37:12 -0700
From: Chris Lonvick <lonvick.ietf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
References: <540A3309.90802@gmail.com>
 <CALaySJLfgZ6EfnUGSJGQjwgJ1W4YnnHq27-Nf+5D626LCQSfKQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJLfgZ6EfnUGSJGQjwgJ1W4YnnHq27-Nf+5D626LCQSfKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------070905090307000807080705"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/TNAvwfNnHsbljBdjVxyJN3C0ijc
Cc: "draft-kyzivat-case-sensitive-abnf.all@tools.ietf.org"
 <draft-kyzivat-case-sensitive-abnf.all@tools.ietf.org>,
 "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-kyzivat-case-sensitive-abnf
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>,
 <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>,
 <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2014 17:37:17 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070905090307000807080705
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Barry,

On 9/6/14, 7:59 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> Hi, Chris, and thanks for the review.
>
>     2 - The last sentence of section 2.1 is:
>
>         This mechanism has a clear readability
>         disadvantage, with respect to using a literal text string with a
>         prefix, and new the prefix mechanism is preferred.
>
>
>     Perhaps you meant:
>        This mechanism of using a literal text string with a prefix has
>     a clear
>        readability disadvantage.  The prefix mechanism described in this
>        specification can be much more easily read.
>
>
> No.  Take the sentence in context.  The context is that it's 
> describing the was we used to do case-sensitive text, giving each 
> character's numeric value.  It's *that* mechanism that has the 
> readability disadvantage.
>
> Do you really think that text is unclear, in the context that it's 
> given?  I suppose we could say "The old mechanism has...", to make it 
> even clearer.

The sentence is consistent with the context of the section and I get 
that.  What I was raising a concern about was the nearly unparsable last 
clause: "and new the prefix mechanism is preferred."  :-) Obviously I 
muddied the waters with my suggestion and I don't see the point of 
belaboring this with explanations of %d or %h prefixes make literal 
strings unreadable, so just find some way to clean up that last clause.

Best regards,
Chris
>
> Barry
>


--------------070905090307000807080705
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    Hi Barry,<br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/6/14, 7:59 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CALaySJLfgZ6EfnUGSJGQjwgJ1W4YnnHq27-Nf+5D626LCQSfKQ@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">Hi, Chris, and thanks for the review.<br>
      <br>
      <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
        .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
        <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><big><font face="Times New
              Roman, Times, serif">2 - The last sentence of section 2.1
              is:<br>
              &nbsp;&nbsp; </font></big><big><font face="Times New Roman, Times,
              serif"> </font></big>
          <pre>   This mechanism has a clear readability
   disadvantage, with respect to using a literal text string with a
   prefix, and new the prefix mechanism is preferred.</pre>
          <big><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
              Perhaps you meant:<br>
              &nbsp;&nbsp; This mechanism of using a literal text string with a
              prefix has a clear <br>
              &nbsp;&nbsp; readability disadvantage.&nbsp; The prefix mechanism
              described in this <br>
              &nbsp;&nbsp; specification can be much more easily read.</font></big><br>
        </div>
      </blockquote>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>No. &nbsp;Take the sentence in context. &nbsp;The context is that it's
        describing the was we used to do case-sensitive text, giving
        each character's numeric value. &nbsp;It's *that* mechanism that has
        the readability disadvantage.</div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>Do you really think that text is unclear, in the context that
        it's given? &nbsp;I suppose we could say "The old mechanism has...",
        to make it even clearer.</div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    The sentence is consistent with the context of the section and I get
    that.&nbsp; What I was raising a concern about was the nearly unparsable
    last clause: "and new the prefix mechanism is preferred."&nbsp; :-)&nbsp;
    Obviously I muddied the waters with my suggestion and I don't see
    the point of belaboring this with explanations of %d or %h prefixes
    make literal strings unreadable, so just find some way to clean up
    that last clause.<br>
    <br>
    Best regards,<br>
    Chris<br>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CALaySJLfgZ6EfnUGSJGQjwgJ1W4YnnHq27-Nf+5D626LCQSfKQ@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>Barry</div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------070905090307000807080705--