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

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.

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.  Also, is there an available validator for
PETDM, or is this something the expert will validate?

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.
		regards,
			Ted Hardie



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