> 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.
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.
--
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
