Opened 6 years ago

Closed 6 years ago

Last modified 6 years ago

#540 closed editorial (incorporated)

clarify ABNF layering

Reported by: julian.reschke@… Owned by: draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging@…
Priority: normal Milestone: 26
Component: p1-messaging Severity: In IESG Evaluation
Keywords: Cc:

Description

Pete Resnick:

Throughout the document (and the other documents in the series): I now understand that you intend a two stage parse for header fields and have that represented in the ABNF as a separate overall message syntax and a header field value syntax. That's fine, but I would ask that you make this clearer somewhere in section 3 of the p1 document. You talk about the parsing, but I think it is well worth describing that there are two levels of ABNF, and that the ABNF rule name corresponds to the header field name. It is fine to do it this way, but it's not the way that ABNF has been used in the past, so best to make it crystal clear.

Attachments (1)

540.diff (1.0 KB) - added by julian.reschke@… 6 years ago.
Proposed patch

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (7)

comment:1 Changed 6 years ago by julian.reschke@…

  • Summary changed from clarify ABNF levels to clarify ABNF layering

Changed 6 years ago by julian.reschke@…

Proposed patch

comment:2 Changed 6 years ago by julian.reschke@…

From [2528]:

clarify ABNF layering for field names (see #540)

comment:3 Changed 6 years ago by julian.reschke@…

  • Resolution set to incorporated
  • Status changed from new to closed

comment:4 Changed 6 years ago by fielding@…

From [2533]:

rephrase [2528] to be more understandable by non-spec-authors; see #540

comment:5 Changed 6 years ago by fielding@…

From [2534]:

another attempt to rephrase [2528] to be more understandable by non-spec-authors; see #540

comment:6 Changed 6 years ago by fielding@…

From [2535]:

move that paragraph to the right section; see #540

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.