On 2017-12-18 16:50, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
>
>> On Dec 18, 2017, at 8:23 AM, Leif Johansson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Victor - this draft has passed WGLC and since you're the only one who
>> has (so far) raised a requirement for a formal syntax here, so unless
>> you or somebody provides concrete suggestions *and* there is clear WG
>> support for the change, we are not going to spend more time on this.
>>
>> This does not *exclude* making further change but we are past the
>> time for open-ended discussions about this document.
>
> My hope is that the authors/editors will recognize the defect and
> make the necessary changes. The current syntax (of the "policy-string"
> element) is under-specified. It contains just a vague example.
> So the original actual intent is unclear. At the very least the
> original intent should be more specific.
>
> This is an esoteric topic, I don't expect that very many others
> did a close reading of the document. I am sorry I got to it
> somewhat late, but it is not a published RFC yet, and I hope
> that bug-fixes are still possible.
Certainly we can do changes to the document but the IETF consensus
process depends on multiple people making their voices heard - this
is the rough part of "rough consensus and running code". Sometimes
under-specified is actually good enough.
As somebody who implements specifications I totally sympathize with
your desire to have a specification that is as specific as possible...
However as chair, the later in the process we get the more I'm going
to insist on putting "pen to paper" in order to progress the document.
Cheers Leif
>
> Perhaps one of the authors is willing to propose a more
> explicit grammar.
>
> The "policy-string" should be machine-readable, and therefore
> should have an explicit syntax.
>
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
