Rainer
I am flexible about what form the specification takes but would like it to be
one of the eight or so that already exist. Looking at existing RFC, I find the
ABNF format the least used (outside the strict ABNF itself), suspect that
Unicode's U+0020 is the future and so is what I would use, but that some form of
named characters would have the most appeal. If we put names in the ABNF, then
I think the names should be from a standard, eg ISO 10636.
Tom
- Original Message -
From: Rainer Gerhards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 8:57 AM
Subject: [Syslog] RE: nailing down characters in syslog-protocol
Tom,
I see your point. I will check the text to see where this needs to be
fixed. Another approach might be to define all these characters with
specific ABNF names, and then refer to them (if they are not too many).
I'll see...
Rainer
-Original Message-
From: Tom Petch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 4:59 PM
To: Rainer Gerhards
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Chris Lonvick
Subject: nailing down characters in syslog-protocol
I would like to see a stricter definition of characters in
syslog-protocol.
With US-ASCII, references to space or period or hyphen are
unambiguous; with
UTF-8, they are not and so I think we should be more specific with our
terminology. Other documents specify characters in a variety
of ways, by
names - SPACE or NUL or hyphen-minus - or by code - U+0020
or 0x00 or %2D. We
use
%dnn
in the ABNF so could use this notation elsewhere (although it
is not my
favourite) with a
paragraph in Section 2 to explain this, something like
Characters will be specified either by a decimal value
(e.g., the value %d65 for uppercase A and %d97 for
lowercase A) or by
a case-insensitive literal value enclosed in quotation marks (e.g.,
A for either uppercase or lowercase A).
or whatever is appropriate. I know of no RFC that handles
this well but some
are not bad, eg RFC2822 (from which the above comes) or RFC3987.
An example of a place in the I-D where I would make such a
change is in
6.2.8. PROCID
where we have
The dash (-) is ...
replacing it with something like
%d45 ( - ) ...
Not so pretty but more likely to interoperate.
This comment may not attract much me too on this list but
is intended to
forestall objections that may well arise from the IESG or
during IETF last call.
Tom Petch
___
Syslog mailing list
Syslog@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
___
Syslog mailing list
Syslog@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
