Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-10.txt

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 09:55:32 +0300

Hi,

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Draft: draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-10.txt
Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Review Date: 6 October 2006
IETF LC Date: 28 September 2006

Summary:

This draft is ready for publication as a PS RFC.

A very minor comment:

In the text, FWS appears in square brackets. Since references also
appear in square brackets, it might be confusing. CFWS sometimes appears
without the brackets in the text. The authors may consider using the
same format for FWS and CFWS throughout the text

Thanks,

Gonzalo

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 01:05:46 -0700

> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
Thanks for the review!
> same format for FWS and CFWS throughout the text
We'll check this. The ABNF construct [FWS] from RFC 2822 actually means 
"optional FWS"; "FWS" means "one occurence of folding whitespace", which 
may contain any amount of whitespace larger than one blank, while 
"[FWS]" means "zero or one occurence of whitespace".

The same two meanings apply to "CFWS" vs "[CFWS]"; one possible solution 
is to replace "[FWS]" with the text "optional FWS" where that is the 
intended meaning.

(on review, the [FWS] in the text (not grammar) of section 3.1.4 should 
have been "FWS" without brackets, since the no-FWS alternative of [FWS] 
is a no-op in this case.... same for section 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.2.8 - in 
all those cases, generating nothing is allowed, but that's not what the 
text is about..)

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 05:31:55 -0700

Charles Lindsey wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 09:05:46 +0100, Harald Alvestrand 
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>
>>> A very minor comment:
>>>
>> We'll check this. The ABNF construct [FWS] from RFC 2822 actually 
>> means "optional FWS"; "FWS" means "one occurence of folding 
>> whitespace", which may contain any amount of whitespace larger than 
>> one blank, while "[FWS]" means "zero or one occurence of whitespace".
>>
>> The same two meanings apply to "CFWS" vs "[CFWS]"; one possible 
>> solution is to replace "[FWS]" with the text "optional FWS" where 
>> that is the intended meaning.
>>
>> (on review, the [FWS] in the text (not grammar) of section 3.1.4 
>> should have been "FWS" without brackets, since the no-FWS alternative 
>> of [FWS] is a no-op in this case.... same for section 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 
>> 3.2.8 - in all those cases, generating nothing is allowed, but that's 
>> not what the text is about..)
>
> Agreed, but I don't see any instance of the problem in 3.2.5. OTOH 
> there is an instance in Appendix B.
I hit the wrong key - it's in 3.2.6.
You're right about appendix B.
>
> In places where we are discussing why the syntax was contructed as it 
> was (e.g. the NOTE in 2.2) we might write "[FWS]" and "*WSP". We might 
> also use <FWS> rather than FWS, but that would be taking pedantry too 
> far. That is a useful convention when there is need to distinguish 
> "<body>" from "body", but for things in uppercase like "CFWS" there is 
> never any confusion with any 'normal' meaning of the term.
<[FWS]> would be correct, but horrible to read....
>
> --Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ 
>
> Tel: +44 161 436 6131                      
>    Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
> Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. 
>
> PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 
>
>

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 13:19:38 +0100

> all those cases, generating nothing is allowed, but that's not what the  

Agreed, but I don't see any instance of the problem in 3.2.5. OTOH there  
is an instance in Appendix B.

In places where we are discussing why the syntax was contructed as it was  
(e.g. the NOTE in 2.2) we might write "[FWS]" and "*WSP". We might also  
use <FWS> rather than FWS, but that would be taking pedantry too far. That  
is a useful convention when there is need to distinguish "<body>" from  
"body", but for things in uppercase like "CFWS" there is never any  
confusion with any 'normal' meaning of the term.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131                       
   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 15:54:00 +0300

Hi,

as I wrote in my review, that was a "very minor comment". Feel free to 
ignore it if you wish.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> Tel: +44 161 436 6131                         Web: 
>> http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl