[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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: