[rfc-i] ABNF (RFC2234)

Hollenbeck, Scott shollenbeck at verisign.com
Thu Apr 7 04:23:33 PDT 2005

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org 
> [mailto:rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Lilly
> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 4:45 PM
> To: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] ABNF (RFC2234)
> >  Date: 2005-04-06 07:02
> >  From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck at verisign.com>
> > ...and with the recent IESG approval of 
> draft-crocker-abnf-rfc2234bis (which obsoletes RFC 2234), the 
> erratum for RFC 2234 become irrelevent.
> I can think of a couple of reasons why errata for 2234 remain 
> relevant:
> 1. 2234 is referenced by a number of other RFCs; until such time as
>    those RFCs are updated, readers are likely to look at 2234 and
>    possibly errata

Fair enough.  I should have said "irrelevent for new specs using the
document that obsoletes 2234".

> 2. An historical record of changes to the ABNF specification may be of
>    interest (not only to historians, but in conjunction with NEWTRK
>    "ISD" documents)

This is less clear.  Having just been through the process of bringing
ABNF to draft status, I can assure you that there were some issues with
the erratum published for 2234.  It would not be a good idea to assume
that they were all incorporated into the update.  We (the IESG and the
authors) had to consider each point individually to confirm agreement
with the alleged issues, and in the end there was disagreement that led
to (still unresolved) questions of how they were accepted in the first
place.  Suffice it to say that they were NOT blindly incorporated into
the update.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list