Re: [sipcore] draft-barnes-sipcore-rfc4244bis

First I thought that you had a point, but then after checking 3.6/RFC5234 it
turns out that the current syntax is correct.

1*DIGIT, means 1 or more digits, which is entirely correct.

Further I don't think that we should restrict the number of digits with some
arbitrary limit.

/Hans Erik van Elburg

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Dale Worley <dworley@nortel.com> wrote:

> The syntax for hi-index restricts each component to be a single digit:
>
>   hi-index = "index" EQUAL 1*DIGIT *("." 1*DIGIT)
>
> I think this is problematic because it allows only nine forks of a
> request.  Better would be to allow integers.  I propose that integers
> through 999 be allowed, on the grounds that 99 should be more than
> sufficient, so this leaves plenty of headroom, and that numbers through
> 999 can be stored in small binary formats.
>
> The BNF would be changed to:
>
>   hi-index = "index" EQUAL hi-component *("." hi-component)
>
>   hi-component = %x31-39 0*2DIGIT
>
> There are four instances of "digit(s)" in the text that would be
> replaced by "integer(s)".
>
> Dale
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>