Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol Specifications
draft-farrel-rtg-common-bnf-09
Yes
(David Ward)
(Lars Eggert)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
No Objection
(Chris Newman)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(Jari Arkko)
(Jon Peterson)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Mark Townsley)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
David Ward Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
(was No Objection, Discuss)
Yes
Yes
(2009-03-12)
Unknown
Section 2.2.2:
Meaning:
The objects or constructs MUST be present in the order specified.
This has an implicit assumption about reading left to right and upper line to lower line. Maybe one should be clearer on this.
Section 2.2.5:
Note 2:
I think you should include paranthesis around the second alternative to make the recursive statement clear. Seems to be breaking the recommendation from earlier.
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2009-03-05)
Unknown
I think it would be useful to mention somewhere in Section 1 the biggest difference to ABNF: in ABNF (as defined in RFC 5234) the terminals are integers (characters/bytes), while in RBNF they're "objects" (some kind of message elements, but not individual bytes or characters). Thus, the two are not really interchangeable -- and it's not clear that talking about e.g. converting existing specs to use ABNF even makes sense (if the spec assumes that terminals are message elements, then RFC5234 ABNF just won't work). (Of course, it would be possible to specify RFC5234-like BNF notation that allowed other kinds of terminals than integers, but that would not be RFC5234 any more.)
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown