----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>; "Tom.Petch" <sisyphus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 9:49 PM Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-farrel-rtg-common-bnf (Reduced Backus-Naur Form(RBNF) A Syntax Used in Various Protocol Specification toProposed Standard > Thanks John, > > It looks to me from your mail that we are in partially violent agreement. > > Certainly that this form of BNF needs to be documented. > Also that the Applicability text I have added "will do." > > We have two open issues: > - Use of 2119 language > - Standards Track or Informational > > On the first, I take your point and am uncomfortable about using 2119 for > what is not a protocol spec. Experience seems to be, however, it helps > readers to understand that a rule is a rule. > > On the second, I would like to defer to the IESG. I will raise it with the > sponsoring AD (Ross) and get them to discuss it when they process the I-D. > I agree with John that Standards Track is inappropriate for this I-D (and agree that it does need publishing). I see either Informational or Historic as appropriate and when this leads to Normative downrefs, then again, I see that as appropriate. I think too that there is a third issue, of a better name than RBNF. John clearly showed that this I-D is not reduced. Historic? Deprecated? Limited_applicability? Variant? Simplified? Tom Petch > Cheers, > Adrian > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf