Subject: [Enum] Re: ABNF - cohabitation

From: Lawrence Conroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 18:18:45 +0100

Hi Folks,
  hope you're all having a fun time in YOK.

Quick comment:  Well... this proposal indicates that there is little consensus
on content. It does present a way forward for the "base" specification,
so my compliments.

It does shift the argument onto the service definition documents, so we still
have ample chances to argue at one another.
We also have a another slight shift in syntax (sigh...).

----
 From my perspective, the optional colon-sep list is "for future use 
only". But...
Clive, couldn't you do your multiple component stuff using this syntax?

Each enumservice is an alternative, whilst the colon-sep stuff is, I guess,
an AND. It's a little more verbose than using your naked "<", ">", and "#",
but the effect seems similar to me.
----

I do have two small issues with the ABNF, however.
If each enumservice string is registered separately, then I don't think that
we have any way add an item that will only occur once per *list of 
enumservices*.

Also, as the enumservice list is shown as 1*, do we need to define a default
"none-of-your-business" enumservice [expected client behaviour - use the URI
and if that isn't enough, reject the NAPTR; function to indicate that the
registrant is unwilling to specify further usage in the NAPTR]?

Both minor points that don't affect me now, but have these been considered?
----
all the best,
   Lawrenece

-- 
[email-masked]: +44 1794 833666::<my opinions>:

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum