Subject: [sipcore] draft-barnes-sipcore-rfc4244bis

From: "Dale Worley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:51:42 -0400

The syntax for hi-index restricts each component to be a single digit:

   hi-index = "index" EQUAL 1*DIGIT *("." 1*DIGIT)

I think this is problematic because it allows only nine forks of a
request.  Better would be to allow integers.  I propose that integers
through 999 be allowed, on the grounds that 99 should be more than
sufficient, so this leaves plenty of headroom, and that numbers through
999 can be stored in small binary formats.

The BNF would be changed to:

   hi-index = "index" EQUAL hi-component *("." hi-component)

   hi-component = %x31-39 0*2DIGIT

There are four instances of "digit(s)" in the text that would be
replaced by "integer(s)".

Dale

---

From: Hans Erik van Elburg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 11:32:43 +0200

First I thought that you had a point, but then after checking 3.6/RFC5234 it
turns out that the current syntax is correct.

1*DIGIT, means 1 or more digits, which is entirely correct.

Further I don't think that we should restrict the number of digits with some
arbitrary limit.

/Hans Erik van Elburg

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Dale Worley <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>

---

From: "Dale Worley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:18:32 -0400

On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 11:32 +0200, Hans Erik van Elburg wrote:
> First I thought that you had a point, but then after checking
> 3.6/RFC5234 it turns out that the current syntax is correct.
> 
> 

Well, yes, I seem to have overlooked that.  OK, cancel my suggestion to
change the BNF.

That means that we really must change the four instances of "digit(s)"
to be "integer(s)" (or number(s)), as the text is now inconsistent with
the BNF.

Dale