On 5/20/25 7:50 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > On 5/19/25 11:55 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> On 17.05.2025 16:32, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > >>> I've encountered this style before while doing genart reviews. >>> It does seem to precisely define they syntax. But it takes an order of >>> magnitude more text than equivalent ABNF would. >>> >>> I fail to grasp any benefits that this provides. Are there any? >> >> It makes implementing easier, in case you're willing to be *told* how to do >> things. > > I think it is the business of IETF to tell implementers *what* to implement, > not *how*. We should be specifying the minimum constraints necessary to > ensure interoperability. There is a place for implementation notes - a > non-normative appendix. > > In my many years as an implementer, I objected to being told *how*. That was > my job, and I wanted the freedom to come up with the best approach within > prevailing constraints. >
Yes, that is what I meant when I say that specifications should be descriptive, as opposed to algorithms being prescriptive. On the one hand, I like that RFC 9651 is no longer using normative ABNF, but on the other hand, I dislike even more normative algorithms in RFCs. -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Email: m...@petit-huguenin.org Blog: https://medium.com/@petithug Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org
