X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Delivered-To: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.163.148 with SMTP id m142csp273865ioe;
        Mon, 11 Aug 2014 08:38:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.70.36.239 with SMTP id t15mr23985642pdj.83.1407771536693;
        Mon, 11 Aug 2014 08:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <abnf-discuss-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org. [2001:1900:3001:11::2c])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ko4si13702171pbc.33.2014.08.11.08.38.56
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
        Mon, 11 Aug 2014 08:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of abnf-discuss-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1900:3001:11::2c as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:1900:3001:11::2c;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
       spf=pass (google.com: domain of abnf-discuss-bounces@ietf.org designates 2001:1900:3001:11::2c as permitted sender) smtp.mail=abnf-discuss-bounces@ietf.org;
       dkim=pass header.i=@ietf.org
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1])
	by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A32DD1A04F1;
	Mon, 11 Aug 2014 08:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1;
	t=1407771535; bh=MsS6eJzxK1ttJkAQd6S5TCbkeesZobheyRlmFzUro2c=;
	h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To:Cc:
	 Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:
	 List-Subscribe:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Sender;
	b=qeXJiV3X7qjXLg5P3SIQTvwyngKHqWoc+fF7mqd/dQcvZ2BIWybKAJk1GWxk2NtWB
	 c+TpqGKVLWdNpXc2rI35XbvoSMgTr1B8NdYuE45PWlYu7+8j6+zEgsXYB+hctNVLP3
	 qu7YsYLp7HiuTU3XGHe/kv0COqA5q2P3U/QP28Fc=
X-Original-To: abnf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: abnf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1])
 by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 498611A04B8
 for <abnf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 08:38:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.664
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.664 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44])
 by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id dCnQgnF6M96F for <abnf-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>;
 Mon, 11 Aug 2014 08:38:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net
 (qmta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:24])
 by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A18C1A04AE
 for <abnf-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 08:38:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.87])
 by qmta02.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast
 id dSTD1o0051swQuc51Ter6Y; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 15:38:51 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164])
 by omta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast
 id dTer1o00Y3ZTu2S3bTerJn; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 15:38:51 +0000
Message-ID: <53E8E38B.4030402@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 11:38:51 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
References: <53E3B22E.5000708@alum.mit.edu>	<01PB3UKRBQA80000SM@mauve.mrochek.com>	<53E43328.7040503@alum.mit.edu>
 <CAC4RtVApEjG66+xtA+y2i9vVrG0FgJQ2Erw57dkub1BJd3ez_A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVApEjG66+xtA+y2i9vVrG0FgJQ2Erw57dkub1BJd3ez_A@mail.gmail.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net;
 s=q20140121; t=1407771531;
 bh=xb/7cTScMcxuq/4jFX/r7pYL67AlTBhNlhUUA8CL/nU=;
 h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:
 Content-Type;
 b=M8mZwtmhm48/APIDwVJH2u0jFuXrhhQhqzR81yauIp8ll5DKzxe6R5s5VMkDgjmm/
 1F/CyOGN1VOCmyI8usp3TL6upWsQq2u19y3JfydFSXgEfwTDAwulYE22zT1c8jCqg+
 HsXhXId5AKXugusSDC1NEfFWaUKV/lBraTCgStsdqjMZ9EjXHAHT8k44E9QXaFIu/a
 cA/35+QnrfCxDmTULKxePp4P8gRPtfjjNGldWQjx/zLp5Cy+YJN4q/uuEzw3Llh5Sj
 fabC0a6ruRolfX5+GTQFtL80UdmReVj/IRehwIePGvI03VgKDHKmqoHFOcMI2isv3w
 d/eV+EAp4Ovzg==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/abnf-discuss/TwpFS7D-J6nNRFruZy12zRCdDYk
Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>,
 "abnf-discuss@ietf.org" <abnf-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [abnf-discuss] Case-sensitive string constants in ABNF
X-BeenThere: abnf-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "General discussion about tools,
 activities and capabilities involving the ABNF meta-language"
 <abnf-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/abnf-discuss>,
 <mailto:abnf-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/abnf-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:abnf-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:abnf-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abnf-discuss>,
 <mailto:abnf-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: abnf-discuss-bounces@ietf.org
Sender: "abnf-discuss" <abnf-discuss-bounces@ietf.org>

On 8/10/14 5:15 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>> I would suggest writing this as an extension, not a revision.
>>
>> I'm not opposed to that, in principle. But I am not sure what that would
>> look like.
>>
>> Certainly the syntax changes can be done incrementally using /=.
>> The result would be functionally the same, but wouldn't be as readable.
>>
>> I don't know how I would write the descriptive part as an extension
>> document.
>
> I think you already did, in your first message.  It's perfectly
> understandable, and serves as a fine update to 5234.

OK. I could live with that.

>>  From a practical perspective, why would an extension be better? Would it be
>> any easier to put the extension doc through the process to an RFC? Why?
>
> 1. A specific update for a specific purpose has a clearly defined
> scope.  Opening the document as a "bis" invites every little tweak
> that anyone's thought of recently (or not so recently).  Sometimes
> that's good, but often it's not.

I understand that. But if a draft is submitted that has very limited 
changes, then that ceases to be be an issue.

> 2. 5234 is such a basic document for our process, and is so widely
> cited, that complete revisions to it that give it a new RFC number are
> quite disruptive.  In theory, that's what STD and BCP numbers are for,
> but no one references this as "STD 68" (and our citation rules don't
> really allow us to).  It would be much better, for a minor extension
> such as this, to keep it as RFC 5234.

I guess that is potentially an issue. At least, people would probably 
want the new RFC# to be N234. The next of those is 8234, and it will 
take awhile to get there. :-)

>> After the fact it would certainly be easier for somebody to consult a
>> revised document than to consult both the base document and an extension.
>
> For this sort of thing, I don't see that as an issue.  It doesn't
> affect any documents that don't use this feature, and anyone reading
> ABNF from those only has to look at 5234.  Documents that make use of
> this feature would say something like, "The formal language below uses
> ABNF [RFC5234] as extended by the case-sensitivity extension
> [RFCpqrs]," and would include your RFCpqrs as a normative reference.
>
> At some later point, if it turns out that a great many documents are
> using this extension, we could consider a revision of 5234 then.  In
> the meantime, RFCpqrs would "update" 5234, and would be added as part
> of STD 68.

OK. As I've said, I don't much care.

	Thanks,
	Paul

_______________________________________________
abnf-discuss mailing list
abnf-discuss@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abnf-discuss