Roy,
On 2012-05-02 20:32, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> 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).
But that is contrary to the general principle in the IETF of
using normative references and *not* replicating normative material,
to avoid mistakes.
Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages, but making
ABNF an exception seems problematic, or at least a decision that can't
be taken at Area level.
> 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.
Would you call that "disinheritance" ?
Brian
_______________________________________________
websec mailing list
websec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
