Subject: [dispatch] draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn-10

From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:58:28 -0400

This is rather a nit, but in -10 I see:

       gsma-specifier-defined-param-name  = gsma-approved-nonempty-string
       gsma-specifier-defined-param-val = gsma-approved-string
       gsma-specifier-param =
                       "svn" "=" software-version-string /
                       "vers" "=" gsma-format-version-string /
                       gsma-specifier-defined-param-name "="
                       1*(gsma-specifier-defined-param-val)
       software-version-string = 2DIGIT
       gsma-format-version-string = DIGIT
       gsma-approved-string = *unreserved

The production for gsma-specifier-param has been modified since the -09
version.

Looking at the final alternative for gsma-specifier-param I see:

     gsma-specifier-defined-param-name "=" 1*(gsma-specifier-defined-param-val)

but given these definitions:

       gsma-specifier-defined-param-val = gsma-approved-string
       gsma-approved-string = *unreserved

this has the effect:

     gsma-specifier-defined-param-name "=" 1*(*unreserved)

which has the same effect as:

     gsma-specifier-defined-param-name "=" *unreserved

In this context, I think the natural way to express it is:

     gsma-specifier-defined-param-name "=" gsma-specifier-defined-param-val

Dale

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:29:13 -0400

Dale,

I don't really know, but conjecture that they want to allow multiple 
values. If so, what is missing from the ABNF is a separator between values.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 7/11/12 1:58 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>