Re: [CCAMP] RFC 4207 LMP Erratum

[Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf at gmail.com>]

Hi Adrian,

I think the BNF format below is ambiguous as it does not tell which
part is repeatetive (only trace or others too):

   <TraceMonitor Message> ::= <Common Header> <MESSAGE_ID>
                              <LOCAL_INTERFACE_ID>
                              <TRACE> ...

If we want to be consistent with the other messages in the RFC it should be:

   <TraceMonitor Message> ::= <Common Header> <MESSAGE_ID>
                              <LOCAL_INTERFACE_ID>
                              <TRACE> [<TRACE> ...]


However the best representation would be:

   <TraceMonitor Message> ::= <Common Header> <MESSAGE_ID>
                              <LOCAL_INTERFACE_ID> <TRACE_LIST>

   <TRACE_LIST> ::= <TRACE> [<TRACE_LIST> | ]

Thanks,
Vishwas

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Adrian Farrel <Adrian.Farrel at huawei.com> wrote:
> Hi CCAMP,
>
> Can I please have your help in resolving an Erratum raised against the LMP
> spec RFC 4207.
>
> You can see the full details at
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4207&eid=167
>
> The essence of the question is: how many <TRACE> objects may be present on a
> <TraceMonitor Message>?
>
> The BNF in section 4.1.1 currently implies just one. But the text could be
> interpreted to man more than one.
>
>
> While you are looking at this, can you say whether any other messages should
> also allow more than one <TRACE> object?
>
> Many thanks,
> Adrian
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>