Re: [Ltru] par 3 of 2.2, "identification of subtag's type" (was Additional issues with 4646bis raised by an Apps Review Team review)

[Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov at isode.com>]

> Kent Karlsson wrote:
>  
>
>     ... Replacing (DIGIT 3alphanum) by (DIGIT 3*7alphanum) would just
>     introduce needless ambiguity in the grammar. 
>
> s/ambiguity/redundancy/
>
>  
>
> That said, Kent's response was spot-on. Everything that needs to be 
> covered in the existing production is covered. If it were really 
> desirable to remove the subtlety/cleverness in the ABNF, and **I DO 
> NOT PROPOSE CHANGING ANYTHING HERE**, the solution CE was thinking of 
> might have looked like this:
>
> variant       = ALPHA 4*7alphanum         ; registered variants
>             / (DIGIT 3*7alphanum)
>  
With my individual contributor hat on: IMHO, I think this variant is 
more readable.