Re: [lamps] The LAMPS WG has placed draft-hoffman-andrews-caa-simplification in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

Playing with BAP (on tools.ietf.org <http://tools.ietf.org/>) I see a few improvements in the ABNF.
I did not try to change the syntax in any way.

Russ

= = = = = = 

issuevalue = *WSP [domain] *WSP [";" *WSP [parameters *WSP]]

domain = label *("." label)
label = (ALPHA / DIGIT) *( *"-" (ALPHA / DIGIT))

parameters = parameter *WSP ";" *WSP parameters / parameter
parameter = tag *WSP "=" *WSP value
tag = (ALPHA / DIGIT) *( *"-" (ALPHA / DIGIT))
value = *(%x21-3A / %x3C-7E)

> On Feb 27, 2018, at 3:20 PM, Corey Bonnell <CBonnell@trustwave.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jacob,
> I have a few minor changes I'd like to make to the grammar I proposed a few months ago, namely to add support for whitespace surrounding the equals sign in parameter tag/value pairs as well as to allow for hyphens to appear in parameter tags (this is necessary to support the parameter names proposed in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-acme-caa-03):
> 
> issuevalue = *WSP [domain] *WSP [";" *WSP [parameters] *WSP]
> 
> domain = label *("." label)
> label = (ALPHA / DIGIT) *( *("-") (ALPHA / DIGIT))
> 
> parameters = (parameter *WSP “;” *WSP parameters) / parameter
> parameter = tag *WSP "=" *WSP value
> tag = (ALPHA / DIGIT) *( *("-") (ALPHA / DIGIT))
> value = *(%x21-3A / %x3C-7E)
> 
> I used the same production rule value for "tag" that currently exists for "label" to allow for hyphens in the parameter tag, but didn't combine them so that we can continue to use the descriptive rule names of "tag" and "label" as opposed to something potentially confusing like "tag-or-label".
> 
> For the purposes of getting this incorporated into RFC 6844-bis (or RFC 6844-bis-bis), should I create an erratum, or is this email sufficient?
> 
> Thanks,
> Corey
> 
> 
> On 2/26/18, 2:04 PM, "Spasm on behalf of Jacob Hoffman-Andrews" <spasm-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of jsha@eff.org> wrote:
> 
>    On 02/26/2018 06:46 AM, Tim Hollebeek wrote:
>> the RFC 6844 grammar contradicts the examples.  Corey had an excellent
>> proposed fix for this issue.  It should probably be incorporated.
>    I tried to incorporate changes based on the thread Corey started, but
>    wound up deciding it was better to have something to adopt sooner rather
>    than later. Definitely happy to continue to work on those changes in
>    parallel with the call for adoption. Assuming the draft gets adopted as
>    a WG work product, it's easy enough to land the changes on the WG draft.
> 
>    _______________________________________________
>    Spasm mailing list
>    Spasm@ietf.org
>    https://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=4062&d=2NqU2pDGsMarVBeRjdNh5mhb8N_iwA-esZb_hxFN5Q&s=5&u=https%3a%2f%2fwww%2eietf%2eorg%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fspasm
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> Spasm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm