Subject: [salud] BNF

From: "WORLEY, Dale R (Dale)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:18:15 -0400

The BNF in -02 is:

        alert-URN       = "URN:alert:" alert-identifier
        alert-identifier= alert-category ":" alert-indication
        alert-category  = let-dig [ *25let-dig-hyp let-dig ]
        alert-indication= top-level *("." sub-indication)
        top-level       = let-dig [ *25let-dig-hyp let-dig ]
        sub-indication  = let-dig [ *let-dig-hyp let-dig ]
        let-dig-hyp     = let-dig / "-"
        let-dig         = ALPHA / DIGIT
        ALPHA           = %x41-5A / %x61-7A   ; A-Z / a-z
        DIGIT           = %x30-39 ; 0-9

Is there a reason that sub-indication is not the same as top-level?
If they were the same, we could simplify the BNF:

        alert-URN       = "URN:alert:" alert-identifier
        alert-identifier= alert-category ":" alert-indication
        alert-category  = name
        alert-indication= name *("." name)
        name            = let-dig [ *25let-dig-hyp let-dig ]
        let-dig-hyp     = let-dig / "-"
        let-dig         = ALPHA / DIGIT
        ALPHA           = %x41-5A / %x61-7A   ; A-Z / a-z
        DIGIT           = %x30-39 ; 0-9

Dale

---

From: Laura Liess <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:14:18 +0200

Dale,

> Is there a reason that sub-indication is not the same as top-level?

With the current Alert-Info URN values definitions as described in the
sections 5 and 9.2, they are no longer needed. "top-level" and
"sub-indications" are relics from the previous versions of the draft,
where the stucture was similar to this defined in the RFC 5031. (I am
aware about this but I thougt we should change this when we have
consensus that it is no longer needed. )

>        ALPHA           = %x41-5A / %x61-7A   ; A-Z / a-z

I agree with Dale's proposal.  Any other opinions ?

Thanks
Laura

>
> Dale
> _______________________________________________
> salud mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/salud
>