Re: [mpls] A BNF specification for RSVP-TE

[<julien.meuric at orange-ftgroup.com>]

Hello Adrian.

I snipped to remaining issues only and prefixed my comments with "[JM]".


-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian at olddog.co.uk] 

<snip>

> **********
> There is no ToC. Adding one might help to understand why the "Operators"
> section is numbered 2.2 and not 2.1.5 (I'm a bit lost here).

I can add a ToC.
One is not required in an I-D of this length, but if it would be helpful...

Operators is 2.2 so that section 2.2.1. does not need to be 2.1.5.1 :-)

[JM] Coming from you, that kind of reason is rather weird... but you're the author. ;-)

<snip>

> **********
> Section 2.2.4: the encoding is defined by a full sentence (including
> subject, verb...), thus creating an exception in the form of the
> document. (Would I have raised this if the author was different? ;-) )

Sorry, I will try to use less complete sentences in future documents that I 
write.

[JM] Sounds great! :-)  (Note that the exception I mentioned only applied among the "Encoding" sections, not the whole of the document.)

> **********
> Section 2.2.5: my 1st reaction when reading the example is what you say
> right after about grouping using round braquets instead of square ones.
> The direct consequence of your example is that the operator "..." is
> also defined for nil, which was not obvious before.

Hmmm. I'm not sure what you are saying.

[JM] Sorry if my writing was confusing. I was refering to the last note of 2.2.5. Let me try to rephrase.
You're defining the operator "...". It applies to an object or a construct, but I first wondered on what set/domain (that word again?!) the function was defined. Indeed, the early specification doesn't state if this operator/function is defined for the empty construct or not. A piece of answer if provided in the last example: "[ <MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK> ] ..." reveals that "..." can be applied to an empty construct as the optional part, marked by the square braquets, could be equal to the empty set.
Am I more clear now?

<snip>

Best regards,

Julien
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls