[Tools-discuss] Re: [art] Re: Exploring ABNF extracts from RFCs

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

[This message apparently failed to be sent, so I'm trying again.]

On 7/26/24 12:49 PM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
> Thanks Carsten for the pointers to the CDDL work and the existing 
> extractions you've built!
> 
> Reactions of my own to Paul's questions based on my automated ABNF 
> consolidation experience:
> 
> Le 26/07/2024 à 18:09, Paul Kyzivat a écrit :
>> There are interesting open issues around abnf dependencies:
>>
>> * If I want to use a rule defined in another document, do I add to my 
>> abnf *all* of the foreign abnf that contains the rule definitions I 
>> need? Or do I only import the specific rules I need and any other 
>> rules those depend on?
> 
> The consolidater takes the approach of importing only the specific rules 
> needed and their dependencies.

If we had namespaces this wouldn't be necessary. But for your work this 
seems the practical way.

I would like to see namespaces added to abnf. But will only help in the 
future. We are still stuck with all the usage enshrined in RFCs. So the 
hacks will persist.

...

>> - Stating the dependency in an abnf prose-val. E.g.,
>>      foo = <foo as defined in RFCnnn>
> 
> The consolidater tool as it tries to determine whether a given ABNF can 
> be consolidated identifies not only rules that are undefined, but also 
> rules that are defined only as prose as indeed they often contain 
> references to other RFCs.

While many do, they still do so in ad hoc ways. Have you found a way to 
automate this, or do you use a manual assist?

	Thanks,
	Paul