On Tue May 10 2005 04:50, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Bruce Lilly wrote:
Scott H. wants us to use the new 2234bis in the References.
A normative reference would hold up publication, as the 2234
successor isn't yet a published RFC.
<http://mid.gmane.org/046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF0749C9AF(_at_)dul1wnexmb01(_dot_)vcorp(_dot_)ad(_dot_)vrsn(_dot_)com>
It's not that I necessarily agree, but it's also not an issue
where I'd risk a debate with an AD if I care about the draft.
"Pay the AD now or pay the RFC Editor later". The RFC Editor will
hold up publication as an RFC until all normative references are
published. Expect a change in policy or delays in publication of
documents with ABNF. Note that there are some serious problems
with the ABNF draft (admittedly also in 2234):
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg34855.html
I have to say I found none of the problems you described were "serious" in the
sense I understand the term. You found a bunch of typos, all of which can be
fixed during the author 48 hour period, and you had a concern about being able
to determine from the grammar what rule a comment is attached to, which I find
uninteresting since I reject the notion that comment binding needs to be
determinable from the grammar.
Oh, and then there was the business about line terminators used in stored
copies of specifications. This I also find to be of no relevance. It is well
understood that local storage conventions vary but CRLF is our chosen canonical
form for line terminators. Hopefully we can avoid another round of interminable
discussion of this, repeating what happened with the MIME specification over 10
years ago.
Ned