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

At 2:05 PM -0600 9/2/04, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>
>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?

[email protected], cc'ing me would be great; thanks.


>>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.

Okay.


>>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.


I think it could be done via an editor note, if the wg is okay with the change.
			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