Re: [CCAMP] RFC 4207 LMP Erratum

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

Modifying the best BNF format a bit.

> 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> | <empty> ]
>
> 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
>>
>