The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:current> msg00093



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

[mpls] Fw: A Definition of BNF for use in RSVP-TE

  • From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
  • Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 17:15:33 +0100
  • Delivered-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
  • X-Original-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
  • X-Spam-Flag: NO
  • X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.417 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.182, BAYES_00=-2.599]

Resend
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: <mpls@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 12:36 PM
Subject: A Definition of BNF for use in RSVP-TE


> Hi,
> 
> During the IESG review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-14.txt,
> several ADs noted that the BNF used in the specification
> did not have a normative reference.
> 
> The authors of PCEP had based their BNF usage on that
> used in RSVP ([RFC2205], [RFC3209], and [RFC3473]) and it
> turns out that these documents also don't have references
> to any definition of BNF. 
> 
> On investigation, it appears that the form of BNF used in
> these protocol specifications and in the definition of LMP
> ([RFC4204]) deviates slightly from any existing definition
> of BNF (cf. ABNF [RFC5234]).
> 
> In order to rectify this and meet the IESG's requirements
> for a reference in the PCEP spec, I have produced 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farrel-rtg-common-bnf-00.txt
> 
> It would be very helpful if the members of the MPLS working
> group could quickly review this draft for consistency with
> RSVP-TE as used in RFC 3209 and the various protocol 
> extension RFCs.
> 
> Many thanks,
> Adrian
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls