[rfc-i] v3imp #8 Fragment tagging on sourcecode

Nico Williams nico at cryptonector.com
Wed Jan 28 09:32:35 PST 2015


On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 09:16:37PM -0800, Sean Leonard wrote:
> Overall I still stand by my proposition that the RFC is the module
> for ABNF purposes. Honestly it just makes things a lot simpler. To
> the extent that you need to split things inside the RFC, you can
> refer to specific sections. Specific comments below.

Well, draft-ietf-json-text-sequence-13 will break this proposition.

It's on the RFC-Editor queue.  We could "fix" the "problem" in AUTH48,
but I've no intention to.

I doubt it's the first RFC that will break your assumption.

Not that it matters.  Suppose all RFCs with ABNF only had a *single*
ABNF module, so that each module could be said to be named rfc1234.abnf.
Now what?  You'd still be missing the machine-readable imports.

We could say that every module exports every rule by default, so we
could get away with not having exports.  But imports are absolutely
necessary in order to validate ABNF modules that import rules from
others.

We already have a mess on our hands.  ABNF needs a module system.  An
ad-hoc module system won't do.

Nico
-- 


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list