----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>
To: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>; "Tom.Petch"
<sisyphus(_at_)dial(_dot_)pipex(_dot_)com>;
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-farrel-rtg-common-bnf (Reduced Backus-Naur
Form(RBNF) A Syntax Used in Various Protocol Specification toProposed Standard
Thanks John,
It looks to me from your mail that we are in partially violent agreement.
Certainly that this form of BNF needs to be documented.
Also that the Applicability text I have added "will do."
We have two open issues:
- Use of 2119 language
- Standards Track or Informational
On the first, I take your point and am uncomfortable about using 2119 for
what is not a protocol spec. Experience seems to be, however, it helps
readers to understand that a rule is a rule.
On the second, I would like to defer to the IESG. I will raise it with the
sponsoring AD (Ross) and get them to discuss it when they process the I-D.
I agree with John that Standards Track is inappropriate for this I-D (and agree
that it does need publishing). I see either Informational or Historic as
appropriate and when this leads to Normative downrefs, then again, I see that as
appropriate.
I think too that there is a third issue, of a better name than RBNF. John
clearly showed that this I-D is not reduced. Historic? Deprecated?
Limited_applicability? Variant? Simplified?
Tom Petch
Cheers,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf