Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.
(Jari Arkko) Yes
(Ron Bonica) Yes
(Lisa Dusseault) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes
(Cullen Jennings) Yes
Comment (2007-05-09 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
I think this needs an interoperability report to progress - I have provided one below. As grouping is a functor not operator, I dont' see the unresolved but as being meaningful. To put it another way, I don't see how to construct a grammar that wold be interpreted differently based on the fix in the reported precedence bug. --------------------------------------------------------- Interoperability report for 4234 Several independent implementation of SIP have used the ABNF in 3261 and successfully implement the same grammar as evidenced by the ability to generate and parse messages from other implementations. The following interoperability is based on the open source sip stack at resiprocate.org and Cisco IOS GWs running SIP. The ABNF in 3261 uses terminal values strings ranges comments alternates sequence groups variable repetition optional sequences specific repetitions concatenation ABNF is in widespread use in many specification that are used in the internet and seem to produce implementations that interoperate. I believe the degree of technical maturity is evidenced by the number of RFC that use this.
(Chris Newman) (was No Objection, Discuss) Yes
With this document, the author is unwilling to make any changes without restarting the approval process (it's a matter of principal for the author, and thus not something I want to argue about even if I might disagree about this application of the principle). However, a last call comment on the LWSP issue was not addressed and we are concerned about that issue. As this is an otherwise mature specification with significant community benefit from prompt publication, I suggest this is a perfect case for an IESG Note. Here's proposed text: IESG Note The IESG has observed widespread use of ABNF in many RFCs with a significant level of implementation, successful operational experience and a high degree of technical maturity suitable for a Internet Standard. However, one inconsistency was noticed late enough in the standards process that the community is best served by noting the issue here without delaying this specification. The LWSP rule in appendix B.1 is not compatible with the FWS rule in RFC 2822 and there have been at least two instances where LWSP was mistakenly used when FWS was intended. The IESG cautions ABNF authors to avoid use of LWSP in email headers and carefully consider whether it is appropriate to permit whitespace-only folded lines in other contexts prior to use of that rule.
Magnus Westerlund Yes
(Lars Eggert) No Objection
(Sam Hartman) No Objection
(Russ Housley) No Objection
(Jon Peterson) No Objection
(Tim Polk) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu) No Objection
Comment (2007-05-08 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
I would suggest that Lisa enters in the tracker information that documents the 'significant level of implementation and succesful operational experience' with RFC 4234 as well as the 'high degree of technical maturity' that justifies the advancement from Draft to Full Standard. The quotes are from RFC2026. Dan