Subject: [EAI] Syntax and status of 5336bis

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 14:30:57 -0400

Hi.

I probably should have been explicit about this earlier, but
I've decided that I don't want to take any position about the
details of the various ABNF controversies.    Compared to the
costs of delay while we debate the issues, I just do not
consider the choice important as long as we are consistent about
it.

I do think it is worth pointing out to the WG that, when 5321
was approved, at least one member of the IESG was quite
insistent that we copy all definitions (so that the document was
self-contained and automated ABNF checkers could be used) and
indicate where they came from so that the accuracy of the copies
could be checked manually.  We argued that doing that
post-Last-Call was just too dangerous and ultimately agreed that
5321bis (if and when it ever happened) would contain some sort
of explicit index to where productions could be found.   The
individual involved is no longer on the IESG, so this may be a
non-issue, but I would like Pete (as AD) to either speak up now
about what he is willing to defend to the IESG or to agree to
defend whatever conclusion the WG reaches as to how to proceed.

FWIW, I believe that the "copy and reference source in a note"
model that Jiankang has advocated from time to time may have
been discussed in the context of the IESG position on 5321
during the initial EAI WG period.  That discussion, if it
occurred (I just don't remember), may have influenced what
appeared in 5336 (and 5335).  It makes little difference at this
stage, but let's be careful about blaming the editor for an
approach that seemed sensible to the WG at one time.

    john