Re: Potential ISSUE: <utext>

"Frank Ellermann" <[email protected]> writes:

> The "prose ABNF" was not invented here, it is pure STD 68.
> Maybe this WG invented the idea of using "prose ABNF" for
> ABNF imports, but IIRC Bill Fenner had the idea before us.

Oh, I see my mistake.  I thought the : that you were putting on those
lines was part of your suggested syntax, but you're just using it as a
quoting character.  I couldn't find that syntax in STD 68.

I'm sorry about that; that was my confusion.

So you think that we should put somewhere a list of all the ABNF labels
that we use from other documents into the introduction, probably in the
Syntax section.  Hm.  Well, since you've already tracked most of them
down, I think I'm not adverse, and mechanical validation of ABNF is
definitely useful.

Would you be willing to prepare a patch?  That would be even faster for
me.

>> I'd rather not cite an I-D in a published RFC, and I suspect the RFC
>> Editor would have similar qualms.

> Dunno - if they'd ask me to remove s-o-1036 or the Gilman draft
> references I won't comply.  But that is a different case, these drafts
> are very obviously "historic" (and no IETF WG drafts).

Yes, Son-of is something of a special case.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email protected])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>