Re: ID Tracker State Update Notice: draft-ietf-opes-ocp-core

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Ted Hardie wrote:

> Actually, Steve simply wanted to hold the document open for 
> discussion, since there were some things he wanted to dig through 
> further; the IESG doesn't use DEFER for that (it just continues the 
> discussion), but it was very, very early in the morning in Australia 
> when he pushed the button and he forgot.  He and I hope to circle up 
> on it next week.
That explains, and thank you for watching over the discussion.

> We did have a short discussion of the registry requirements, though, 
> and it would help IANA if we mocked up what an entry in the registry 
> would look like, so they can prepare the registry when it goes to 
> them.
I would be happy to create an example, probably using a real entry 
from OCP/HTTP profile. Where should I send it once it is discussed by 
the WG?
> Also, is there an available validator for PETDM, or is this 
> something the expert will validate?
I doubt PETDM is formal[ized] enough to automate validation. If PETDM 
happens to be useful, we probably would be able to judge whether 
further fomalization makes sense. For now, it is just a semi-formal 
mnemonic requiring human interpretation. Expert validation would be 
required.
> On the ABNF issue, if there is a different flavor of BNF which can 
> express the "n octets" rule, we can switch the reference; the IESG 
> doesn't mind folks using different flavors of notation, it just 
> needs the citations to match.  If there is no flavor of BNF that 
> matches, we can say "expressed in ABNF, except for the "n octets 
> rule"", which is a kludge, but will probably work.
I do not know of any *BNF that allows dynamic rules (other than via 
comments). Moreover, since *BNF notations vary, simply switching 
references will most likely not be possible. How about replacing the 
offending
        data = size ":" <n>OCTET                 ; n == size

rule with ABNF compliant

        data = size ":" *OCTET         ; exactly size octets

rule. This change can be done via Editor Note, I think. Would that 
work?
Thank you,

Alex.

> At 9:46 AM -0600 9/2/04, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> > FYI: It looks like we need to wait another IESG telechat cycle since Steve 
> > Bellovin excersized a "Defer" option to review the latest draft changes 
> > (published in May). Steve's DISCUSS is the last DISCUSS we need to clear.
> > FWIW, ID Tracker description of "Defer" says that it can only be invoked 
> > the first time the document comes up for discussion during a telechat. 
> > Since this is the second telechat for OCP Core, I am guessing that the rule 
> > applies to each revision of the document.
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_state_desc&id=21
> >
> > There is also a new problem recorded by Bill Fenner (without the 
> > corresponding DISCUSS): OCP Core syntax cannot be fully expressed using 
> > ABNF. ABNF cannot express an "n octets" rule where "n" is determined 
> > dynamically.
> > Since it is not a DISCUSS, I would leave the BNF "as is" because the 
> > offending rule is essentially a free-flow comment (from ABNF point of 
> > view), and we have no better way of expressing this, short of extending 
> > ABNF.
> > Alex.
> >
> > On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, The IESG wrote:
> >
> > > 'State Changes to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation::AD 
> > > Followup by Steve Bellovin'
> > > ID Tracker URL: 
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=10380&rfc_flag=0