> I know the accompanying text. I am trying to fix the ABNF by restricting the > given parameter-name to occur once. > > I don't see problem you mentioned in my proposal. > > to-additional-param = ( 0*1(SEMI tag-param)) / ( *(SEMI generic-param))
> This doesn't forces the tag-param to be the Ist parameter. It says the > to-additional-param nonterminal can have either tag-param or > generic-param Actually, the biggest problem with your ABNF is that it specifies you can have a tag-param OR any number of generic-params, but not both a tag-param AND generic-params. ABNF is not perfect for describing cases like this one, where the order of parameters is optional but the number of parameters of a particular type is not. Hence the extra textual information in the specification. In more than one case within RFC-3261, the ABNF does not fully limit how parsing should occur. Given that, I think just leaving the ABNF and accompaning text alone as it is today will be adequate. The implementor is responsible for understanding both the ABNF and it's context. - rob _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
