[rfc-i] Excursion on RFC 5444 [Was:Re: Jave ascii art editor]

Dearlove, Christopher (UK) chris.dearlove at baesystems.com
Wed Jun 25 02:14:41 PDT 2014


One could have a valid discussion on which formalisation to use. ABNF may be official, but really not many people are familiar with it. Regexp is familiar to I believe many more people, but its normal purpose is not as a specification.

But a formalisation of format is good. I recently tripped up (temporarily) misinterpreting a picture-based definition in an older RFC (less than half of current numbering) - I misinterpreted which unit was to be repeated when given an ellipsis block. A formal specification would have helped.

(The biggest block - not Elwyn - to 5444 was at least one person who didn't believe that a format should be specified independently of a protocol. Another issue.)

-- 
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
chris.dearlove at baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687


-----Original Message-----
From: rfc-interest [mailto:rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org] On Behalf Of Elwyn Davies
Sent: 24 June 2014 23:44
To: Thomas Clausen
Cc: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
Subject: [rfc-i] Excursion on RFC 5444 [Was:Re: Jave ascii art editor]

----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or from the internet.
Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachments or reply.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
--------------------------------------------------------

[Totally off topic]
> For the format defined in RFC5444 (a regexp derivative - and here’s a 
> memory test, Elwyn, who was the GEN-ART reviewer for that document?)

Had to retrieve that one from tertiary storage! :-)

January 2008 was a while and about 80 gen-art reviews ago! ARRGH!!!
Quite a contentious one that.  RegExp raised a few hackles (I was quite mild on that one I thought).


>  and used in a few protocols now,

Perhaps we should try out RFC 5444 for the DTN BPbis (coming to an incipient DTN WG maybe after Toronto).

I have to say that there are aspects of the existing RFC 5050 BP that might be better expressed as ABNF (or a RegExp grammar).

/elwyn




_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list