RE: ABNF to Draft -- pending issues

Dave,

> >  On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:22:41 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > >  Folks,
> > >
> > >  It's too late to submit the ABNF revision as an I-D, until after
> > >  Minneapolis, but here is a pointer to the revision:
[...]
> >  ; <http://bbiw.net/specifications/draft-crocker-abnf-rfc2234bis-02dc.txt>
[...]
> I believe ABNF is done, which is to say that it is ready for Draft.
> 
> 1. The revised spec is at the above location, obviously needing formal i-d
> submission after this week.

Don't forget to update the filename in the title area (it refers to
-00<mumble> rather than 02<mumble>) and the dates (more than a year
ago).

> 2. All of the outstanding items, concerning the document, pertain to
> enhancements, rather than to 'fixing bugs in the spec'.  Although most or
> all of the enhancements are reasonable, they would require re-cycling at
> Proposed.  In response to my queries about whether to recycle vs. go to
> draft, the overwhelming preference, is for moving to Draft.  Hence, no
> enhancements to abnf have been done.

There are at least two genuine bugs:
1. ABNF lines need not use CRLF line endings (in fact the canonical
   versions of I-Ds and RFCs at ISI.EDU do not).  I.e., *none* of
   the approved ABNF in use meets the ABNF ABNF CR requirement.
2. There is an unresolved ambiguity regarding comments beginning
   with whitespace, but unassociated with any rule; consider:

   a = b ; comment
     ; comment continues
   c = d

   vs.

   a = b ; comment
     ; supposedly unrelated comment matching rulelist production
   c = d

   vs.

   a = b ; comment
   ; comment unrelated to any specific rule
   c = d

   The ambiguity can be resolved by requiring comments unassociated
   with any rule to have no whitespace preceding the semicolon. 

I strongly suspect that the reason that at least two implementations
have failed to recognize %B, %D, and %X is that the prose in section
2.3 implies only lower-case letters after the percent sign, whereas
the ABNF ABNF (tucked away in a late section) denotes otherwise (but
only upon referring back to a separate paragraph of 2.3 discussing
case-insensitivity of quoted strings).  While that's not a bug per se,
it's an editorial issue that - in light of implementation experience -
probably ought to be addressed.

Whether the bugs and editorial issue are addressed before submission
as an I-D, after I-D announcement but prior to first Last Call, or
after Last Call (and probably requiring a New Last Call) is, of
course, your choice.

Best regards,
  Bruce Lilly