Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Use of LWSP in ABNF -- consensus call

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Keith Moore said:
> it could be argued that the best thing to do is to remove ALL of the
> rules from the ABNF spec, leaving only the language definition and
> examples.

While I don't support this, it does remind me of a problem. I've had
various people tell me in the past that "ABNF" includes Appendix B and,
therefore, it is neither necessary to cite the appendix or to define basic
concepts yourself.

I know that section 1 says that appendix B is "separate from its formal
status", but I suggest that the introduction to the appendix should make it
clear that citing ABNF does *not* include these rules by reference; such
inclusion by reference needs to be explicit.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <clive@xxxxxxxxx>   | Tel:    +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <clive@xxxxxxxxxx>  | Fax:    +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
THUS plc            |                            |

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]