Subject: [abnf-discuss] bap

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 13:01:09 +0100

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> I want to reiterate one point I made earlier:
>
>     There may be one thing to be slightly concerned about: ABNF validators.
>     Without updating them validation of ABNF that uses this will fail.
>
>
> In particular, BAP.
> Does Bill Fenner still maintain that?
>
> 	Thanks,

We did some hacking on the BAP sources for the HTTP/1.1 revision specs; 
the source are over here: 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/browser/abnfparser/bap>.

As far as I recall we added:

- the ability to import rules from a secondary file (such as the core 
rules in <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc5234.html#rfc.section.B.1>)

- the ability to expand the RFC 2616 list notation ("#", basically 
another extension)

- line wrap support (useful when generating ABNF to be used inside an RFC)

- XML export

- the ability to repeat productions that contain printable characters 
expressed as case-sensitive in a comment

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 11:53:25 -0500

Julian,

IIUC you created your own revision of bap for your use.

My interest was to extend bap to support the abnf extension in rfc7405.
I did look at Bill's bap sources, and concluded that this would be 
trivial to do. But I would like to make that extension available to all 
who use bap to verify ABNF - to have the version of bap that is 
referenced from tools.ietf.org (http://bap.googlecode.com) have those 
extensions. That either requires that that version be updated, or that 
tools.ietf.org point somewhere else.

I've tried sending queries to Bill about it a couple of times, but have 
never gotten a reply.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 2/8/15 7:01 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> abnf-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abnf-discuss
>