On May 2, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > 2) There's a common axiom that says it's safer to refer to a definition > rather than to copy it.
I think we should recognize that as a false axiom and move on. We should refer to orthogonal definitions that are subject to independent change control -- e.g., protocol elements that are defined in another spec because they change at a different rate than the referring spec or are used by multiple specs. We should copy a definition by value if the referring spec depends on the definition (does not allow the parser to change even if some other spec were to define it and later extend it). My preference is to not use prose definitions at all -- I used them as a crutch when I first started writing IETF specs in 1994, and they burned me every time. And if we go down the slippery slope, I would love to have a formal definition of set reduction, as in ALPHA = ALPHANUM - DIGIT since I very commonly need rules that only differ by one or two characters being removed from the allowed set. ....Roy _______________________________________________ websec mailing list websec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
