Re: [stir] Proposal for update of erratum #6519

[Marc Petit-Huguenin <[e-mail]>]

On 4/19/21 3:06 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 3:26 PM Marc Petit-Huguenin <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
>>
>>> SWS allows CRLF.  Is that allowed in a claim?
>>
>> No, but that's why I said 'a quoted value whose unquoted part is
>> equivalent to the token in the "ppt" parameter'.  All these are the same
>> claim ('\' used to wrap)
>>
>> ppt=test
>> ppt=TeST
>> ppt="test"
>> ppt="TeST"
>> ppt = test
>> ppt = "test"
>> ppt \
>>     = \
>>       "teSt"
>>
>> These are different claims than above:
>>
>> ppt=" test"
>> ppt="test "
>> ppt="test
>> ppt=test"
>> ppt = "\
>>     test"
>> ppt = "test\
>>    "
>>
>>> If so, I thought that LDQUOT is defined as SWS DQUOTE, and RDQUOT is
>> defined as DQUOTE SWS.
>>>
>>> If we are going to take this approach, we need to allow white space
>> before EQUAL, and we also need it for the unquoted token.
>>
>> EQUAL is SWS "=" SWS, so no need.
>>
> 
> If we define ident-type = "ppt" EQUAL ( token / ( LDQUOT token RDQUOT ) )
> then
> ppt=" test"
> ppt="test "
> ppt="test
> ppt=test"
> ppt = "\
>     test"
> ppt = "test\
>    "
> are all invalid. A token cannot contain a space. Both quotes are required
> if either is present.

A literalist.  Fantastic.

Now, can we go back to fix that text ?

> 
> Also, I thought the group decision was endpoints MUST accept ppt value as a
> token with or without quotes. Endpoints MUST send a token in quotes. I have
> explicitly asked if the group wanted SHOULD in either place, and the
> preference was for the MUST level requirements. I think the errata should
> say this unless there is a good reason to change it.

That was not my understanding.

-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: [e-mail]
Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug